Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
ORIGINAL ARTICLE Circulation Journal Official Journal of the Japanese Circulation Society http://www. j-circ.or.jp Heart Failure Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (EF) of 55% as Cutoff for Late Transition From Heart Failure (HF) With Preserved EF to HF With Mildly Reduced EF Tomoya Ueda, MD; Rika Kawakami, MD; Taku Nishida, MD; Kenji Onoue, MD; Tsunenari Soeda, MD; Satoshi Okayama, MD; Yukiji Takeda, MD; Makoto Watanabe, MD; Hiroyuki Kawata, MD; Shiro Uemura, MD; Yoshihiko Saito, MD Background: Heart failure (HF) with preserved (HFpEF) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a syndrome with complex pathophysiology. Little is known about changes in LVEF that occur over time in HFpEF patients. A fundamental clinical question about HFpEF is whether HFpEF is an early manifestation of HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF). If so, which patients with HFpEF are likely to show a decline in LVEF to less than 50%? The aim of the present study was to examine longitudinal changes in LVEF in patients with HFpEF. Methods and Results: Among 279 consecutive HFpEF patients admitted as emergencies, we examined 100 who underwent echocardiography at least 1 year after discharge. EF >50% was used as the definition of HFpEF. During a mean duration from hospitalization to follow-up echocardiography of 31.5 months, 11% of patients had LVEF ≤50% (mildly reduced LVEF), known as mildly reduced (HFmrEF). The utility of LVEF during hospitalization to predict HFmrEF was assessed with receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis. A cutoff value of 55% had sensitivity of 90.9% and specificity of 97.7%. Logistic regression analysis indicated that LVEF ≤55% and ischemic etiology were strong predictors of progression from HFpEF to HFmrEF (odds ratio [OR] 435, 95% confidence interval [CI] 52.65– 10,614, P<0.0001 and OR 10.9, 95% CI 2.60–74.80, P=0.0007, respectively). Conclusions: The present study suggests that HFpEF patients with LVEF ≤55% may progress to HFmrEF in the future. (Circ J 2015; 79: 2209 – 2215) Key Words: Cutoff value; Echocardiography; Heart failure; Left ventricular ejection fraction H eart failure (HF) is an important public health issue worldwide. Until now, most large clinical studies have targeted HF with reduced (HFrEF) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).1–4 However, HF with preserved LVEF (HFpEF) has recently gained attention because many large clinical studies have demonstrated that half of HF patients have HFpEF5–7 and they have a similar poor prognosis as those with HFrEF,8–11 even though various lines of evidence suggest that the pathophysiology of HFpEF is different from that of HFrEF. Editorial p 2108 HFpEF is a complex syndrome, of which the molecular mechanisms and clinical characteristics remain unclear. Recently, some studies12,13 have reported changes in LVEF that occur over time in patients with HFpEF; a substantial number of patients with HFpEF showed a decline to LVEF <50%. However, it is unclear which patients with HFpEF are more likely to show such a decline. In this context, we performed a longitudinal assessment of LVEF based on echocardiography in patients with acute decompensated HF (ADHF) in the Nara Registry and Analyses for Heart Failure 2 (NARA-HF 2 Study) cohort study. Methods Study Population and Data Collection The NARA-HF 2 Study recruited 611 consecutive patients admitted as emergencies with documented ADHF (either acute new-onset or acute-on-chronic HF) between January 2007 and December 2012.14–16 The diagnosis of HF was based on the Framingham criteria.17 The study population included both HFrEF and HFpEF patients, but patients with acute myocar- Received April 15, 2015; revised manuscript received June 20, 2015; accepted June 24, 2015; released online July 29, 2015 Time for primary review: 5 days First Department of Internal Medicine (T.U., R.K., T.N., K.O., T.S., S.O., Y.T., M.W., H.K., S.U., Y.S.), Department of Regulatory Medicine for Blood Pressure (Y.S.), Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Japan Mailing address: Rika Kawakami, MD, First Department of Internal Medicine, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo, Kashihara 634-8522, Japan. E-mail: [email protected] ISSN-1346-9843 doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-15-0425 All rights are reserved to the Japanese Circulation Society. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] Circulation Journal Vol.79, October 2015 2210 UEDA T et al. Table 1. Baseline Characteristics of Patients Admitted With Acute Decompensated HF in the NARA-HF 2 Study Total (n=100) 50%<LVEF≤55% (n=13) LVEF >55% (n=87) Age, years 70.3±12.1 69.2±12.8 70.5±12.0 0.8056 Female, % 48.0 38.5 49.4 0.4605 24.2±4.0 25.5±4.3 24.0±3.9 0.2699 Ischemic 35.0 84.6 27.6 <0.0001 Valvular 15.0 7.7 16.1 0.4289 Hypertensive 10.0 0.0 11.5 0.1976 6.0 0.0 6.9 0.3288 P value Demographic Body mass index, kg/m2 Etiology of HF, % Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy Medical history, % Hypertension 85.0 84.6 85.1 0.9668 Diabetes mellitus 53.0 61.5 51.7 0.5084 Dyslipidemia 40.0 38.5 40.2 0.8528 Old myocardial infarction 19.0 53.9 13.8 0.0006 Atrial fibrillation 33.0 23.1 34.5 0.4146 23.0 53.9 18.4 0.0046 3.0 0.0 3.5 0.4966 78.0 76.9 78.2 0.9200 121.5±17.0 117.1±11.2 122.2±17.7 0.3563 68.9±9.4 71.2±5.9 68.6±9.8 0.2435 Procedures, % PCI CABG NYHA class on admission, % III or IV Vital signs at discharge SBP, mmHg Heart rate, beats/min Laboratory data at discharge Hemoglobin, g/dl eGFR, ml/min/1.73 m2* Sodium, mEq/L Plasma BNP, pg/ml* 11.0±1.9 10.9±1.4 11.1±2.0 0.8922 32.5 (12.4–58.3) 25.6 (11.0–46.2) 35.4 (12.4–58.4) 0.3822 138.9±3.4 139.1±4.9 139.8±3.5 0.5005 191 (131–348) 347 (206–536) 184 (122–324) 0.0524 Medication at discharge, % ACE inhibitor or ARB 80.0 69.2 81.6 0.2980 β-blocker 39.0 46.2 37.9 0.5707 MR blocker 20.0 15.4 20.7 0.6466 Diuretic 78.0 76.9 78.2 0.9203 *Data are shown as percentage, mean ± standard deviation, or median (interquartile range). ACE, angiotensinconverting enzyme; ARB, angiotensin-receptor blocker; BNP, B-type natriuretic peptide; CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; HF, heart failure; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MR, mineralocorticoid receptor; NARA-HF 2 Study, the Nara Registry and Analyses for Heart Failure 2; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; SBP, systolic blood pressure. dial infarction (AMI), acute myocarditis, and acute HF with acute pulmonary embolism were excluded. The NARA-HF Study 2 included 279 patients with LVEF >50%. We analyzed data from 100 patients who underwent follow-up with echocardiography at least 1 year after discharge. The remaining 179 patients were not enrolled in the present investigation: 15 patients died in the hospital during the emergency admission, 55 patients died within 1 year of discharge, 7 patients were lost to follow-up, and 102 patients were not able to undergo follow-up echocardiography in at the study hospital. None of the 100 patients had severe valvular disease (aortic or mitral stenosis or regurgitation) or developed newonset AMI during the follow-up period. For each patient, baseline data included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), HF etiology, medical history, as well as vital signs, laboratory data, medications, and echocardiography results during hospitalization and at follow-up. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Nara Medical University, and written informed consent was given by all patients according to the Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Definitions Using echocardiography, we measured LVEF at admission and at follow-up at least 1 year after discharge. We adopted the generally accepted criteria of LVEF >50%6,12,18 as the definition for HFpEF in this study. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed on LVEF data obtained during hospitalization to define a cutoff for predicting LVEF ≤50% at follow-up. Echocardiography All echocardiography was performed at Nara Medical University Hospital. For each patient, echocardiograms obtained Circulation Journal Vol.79, October 2015 Longitudinal Changes From HFpEF to HFrEF 2211 during hospitalization and at follow-up (at least 1 year after discharge) included measurements of LV end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD), LV end-systolic dimension (LVESD), LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), LV end-systolic volume (LVESV), left atrial dimension (LAD), interventricular septal (IVS) and LV posterior wall (LVPW) thickness by 2D echocardiography or M-mode. LVEF assessment was based on 2D echocardiography using the quantitative 2D biplane volumetric Simpson method from 4- and 2-chamber views. LV hypertrophy (LVH) was defined as IVS and LVPW thicknesses >12 mm. If there echocardiography was performed multiple times during the hospitalization, we used the data from the examination performed closest to discharge, because data immediately after admission might be incorrect because of tachycardia or inadequate positioning. All measurements were calculated separately by 1 echocardiologist and 1 expert sonographer. The variation in measurements between the 2 investigators was 3.1% in the present study. Statistical Analysis Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range [IQR]), and between-group differences were compared using Student’s t-test. Categorical variables were summarized as percentages and analyzed using the chi-square test. To evaluate the progression from HFpEF to HFrEF, results are reported as odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and P values using logistic regression. JMP version 10 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA) was used for all statistical analyses. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Figure 1. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis for progress to heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). At the optimal cutoff of left ventricular EF 55%, sensitivity was 90.9% and specificity was 97.7%. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.9893. with LVEF>55% during hospitalization had a follow-up LVEF <50%. Results Baseline Characteristics of the Study Patients The mean duration between echocardiography during hospitalization for ADHF and follow-up echocardiography was 31.5 months. During this interval, LVEF fell to <50% in 11.0% (n=11) of patients. The mean age at hospital admission was 70.3±12.1 years, and 48.0% of the patients were women. Regarding the etiology of HF, 35.0 % of patients had ischemic causes, 15.0% had valvular causes, 10.0% had hypertensive heart disease, and 6.0% had hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. The New York Heart Association (NYHA) function class on admission was III or IV in 78.0% of patients. The median (IQR) plasma B-type natriuretic peptide concentration at discharge was 191 (131–348) pg/ml (Table 1). Changes in LVEF The mean LVEF was 67.0±9.2% during hospitalization and 67.4±11.1% at follow-up. During the follow-up period, LVEF decreased in 50.0% of patients (n=50), increased in 45.0% (n=45), and did not change in 5.0% (n=5). The median annual change in LVEF was –0.1%, with 25% and 75% percentiles of –1.9% and +2.6%, respectively. Among patients with a decline in LVEF from hospitalization to follow-up, LVEF decreased to below 50% in 11 patients. Based on ROC curve analysis for LVEF ≤50% at follow-up, the area under the ROC curve was 0.9893. The LVEF cutoff value was 55%, with sensitivity of 90.9% and specificity of 97.7% (Figure 1). As shown by the distribution of LVEF during hospitalization and follow-up (Figure 2), 10 of 11 patients with LVEF <50% at follow-up had LVEF between 50% and ≤55% during hospitalization. Consequently, the proportion of patients with 50%<LVEF≤55% decreased dramatically, from 13.0% during hospitalization to 4.0% at follow-up. Only 1 of 87 patients Comparison of Clinical Characteristics of Patients With 50%<LVEF≤55% and LVEF >55% To identify other clinical predictors of LVEF <50% during follow-up, we compared the baseline clinical characteristics of patients with 50%<LVEF≤55% with those with LVEF >55% (Table 1). Age, BMI, and the proportion of females were similar in both groups. With regards to HF etiology, the proportion of patients with ischemic causes was significantly higher in patients with 50%<LVEF≤55% compared with patients with LVEF>55%. The prevalence of old MI was significantly higher in patients with 50%<LVEF≤55% than in patients with LVEF>55%. There were no significant differences in the prevalence of comorbidities other than old MI between the 2 groups. NYHA functional class was similar. Systolic blood pressure and heart rate at discharge were similar in both groups. There were also no significant differences in laboratory findings or medications at discharge. Table 2 shows the echocardiographic parameters. The mean follow-up duration in both groups was similar. There was a significant difference in the annual change in LVEF between patients with 50%<LVEF≤55% and LVEF >55%. LVEDD and LVESD were significantly higher in patients with 50%<LVEF≤55% than in patients with LVEF >55% at both measurement points. Regarding LV volume, both LVEDV and LVESV were significantly larger in patients with 50%<LVEF≤55% than in patients with LVEF >55% during hospitalization as well as at follow-up. In patients with LVEF >55%, LVEDV and LVESV were unchanged during hospitalization to follow-up, but LVEDV increased by 10.1% and LVESV by 28.6% in patients with 50%<LVEF≤55%. LAD and the prevalence of LVH were similar between the 2 groups (data not shown). Circulation Journal Vol.79, October 2015 2212 UEDA T et al. Figure 2. Distribution of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (A) during hospitalization for acute decompensated heart failure and (B) at followup. Red represents patients with LVEF <50% at follow-up and the identical subjects in (A) and (B). Table 2. Comparison of Echocardiographic Parameters Between HF Patients With 50%<LVEF≤55% or LVEF >55% Echocardiographic parameter Total (n=100) 50%<LVEF≤55% (n=13) LVEF >55% (n=87) P value Time to follow-up echocardiography, months 31.5±17.0 37.3±16.6 30.6±17.0 0.1426 LVEF during hosp, % 67.0±9.2 51.9±1.9 69.2±7.5 <0.0001 LVEF at follow-up, % 67.4±11.1 46.0±4.1 70.6±7.7 <0.0001 −0.1 (−1.9 to +2.6) −4.3 (−6.0 to −1.5) +0.5 (−1.4 to +2.7) <0.0001 49.6±7.7 55.4±6.1 48.8±7.5 0.0031 LVEF change per year, %* LVEDD during hosp, mm LVEDD at follow-up, mm 49.4±6.5 57.3±6.3 48.3±5.7 <0.0001 0.0 (−1.4 to +1.6) +0.3 (−0.4 to +2.9) 0.0 (−1.5 to +1.6) 0.1987 LVESD during hosp, mm 33.1±7.2 40.4±5.6 32.0±6.7 <0.0001 LVESD at follow-up, mm 32.4±6.6 42.8±5.6 30.9±5.2 <0.0001 0.0 (−1.6 to +1.2) 0.0 (−1.1 to +2.2) 0.0 (−1.7 to +1.0) 0.2500 LVEDV during hosp, ml 71.9±31.4 100.8±30.7 67.5±29.2 0.0006 LVEDV at follow-up, ml 70.3±34.4 111.4±48.9 64.2±27.2 <0.0001 −0.5 (−5.6 to +8.0) +3.0 (−7.0 to +10.4) −0.5 (−5.4 to +8.0) 0.5610 LVESV during hosp, ml 24.9±15.3 49.3±16.1 21.2±11.3 <0.0001 LVESV at follow-up, ml 24.9±20.3 62.1±28.4 19.3±11.0 <0.0001 +0.1 (−2.7 to +2.9) +3.4 (−2.0 to +8.6) 0.0 (−2.8 to +2.5) 0.0614 LVEDD change per year, ml LVESD change per year, ml LVEDV change per year, ml LVESV change per year, ml *Data are shown as percentage, mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range). LVEF/LVEDV/LVESV change=change between hosp and follow-up. EDD, end-diastolic dimension; EDV, end-diastolic volume; EF, ejection fraction; ESD, end-systolic dimension; ESV, endsystolic volume; hosp, hospitalization; LV, left ventricular. Next, we examined which factors were associated with the transition of LVEF from >55% to ≤55%. As shown in Table 3, 50%<LVEF≤55% during hospitalization and ischemic etiology were strong predictive factors (OR 435, 95% CI 52.65– 10,614, P<0.0001 and OR 10.9, 95% CI 2.60–74.80, P=0.0007, respectively). Other than these 2 factors, LVEDD, LVESD, LVEDV and LVESV were significantly associated with pro- gression to HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF). Regarding the change in LV volume from baseline to follow-up, the annual change in LVESV was a predictor (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.02–1.26, P=0.0232) but the change in LVEDV was not. In contrast, none of age, sex and medications was associated with progression to HFmrEF (Table 3). Circulation Journal Vol.79, October 2015 Longitudinal Changes From HFpEF to HFrEF 2213 Table 3. Predictors of Progression From HF With Preserved EF to HF With Reduced EF OR 95% CI P value 50%<LVEF≤55% 435.0 52.65–10,614 <0.0001 Age, years 0.98 0.93–1.03 0.3696 Female sex 0.89 0.24–3.17 0.8577 HF of ischemic etiology 10.9 2.60–74.80 0.0007 LVEDD during hosp, mm 1.14 1.04–1.28 0.0066 LVESD during hosp, mm 1.15 1.05–1.28 0.0018 LVEDV during hosp, ml 1.04 1.01–1.06 0.0007 LVEDV change per year, ml 1.02 0.98–1.06 0.4224 LVESV during hosp, ml 1.16 1.09–1.28 <0.0001 LVESV change per year, ml 1.12 1.02–1.26 0.0232 ACE inhibitor or ARB at discharge 0.63 0.16–3.10 0.5368 β-blocker at discharge 1.35 0.36–4.81 0.6442 MR blocker at discharge 0.88 0.13–3.79 0.8717 Diuretic at discharge 1.35 0.36–4.81 0.6442 LVEDV/LVESV change=change between hosp and follow-up. CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio. Other abbreviations as in Tables 1,2. Discussion HF is classified simply by LVEF into 2 (HFrEF and HFpEF) or 3 (HFrEF, HF-borderline EF, and HFpEF) categories.3,12,19,20 As for HFpEF, both the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines state that HFpEF is defined as LVEF >50%,18,21 but large clinical trials on HFpEF have enrolled patients with LVEF >40% or 45%. Therefore, the definition of HFpEF is not still strictly fixed, so we used LVEF >50% as the cutoff for HFpEF in the present study. The present study results indicated that approximately 10% of patients with HFpEF at baseline had a decline in LVEF to less than 50% but above 40% after a mean followup of 31.5 months. Thus, approximately 10% of patients change from HFpEF to HFmrEF, or HF-borderline EF. It is unclear from the present study whether these patients will further progress to HFrEF over a longer period of time. The present study found LVEF of 55% as a cutoff for the transition from HFpEF to HFmrEF with high sensitivity and specificity based on ROC curve analysis. Although HFpEF is commonly thought to represent diastolic dysfunction with normal systolic function, through a more sensitive method, LV strain, subtle impairment of LV systolic contractility was recently already demonstrated in some patients with HFpEF.22,23 However, given that normal LVEF as measured is 64.9±4.9%24 by echocardiography and 61% in women and 55% in men by MRI,25 systolic function with LVEF<55% on echocardiography is moderately reduced rather than normal. The ESC guidelines propose that patients with LVEF in the range of 35–50% are in a “grey area” and most likely have primary mild systolic dysfunction.18 However, this “grey area” might be wider. The clinical syndrome of acute HF diagnosed by Framingham criteria occurs in patients with any level of LVEF. Earlier studies have demonstrated that there is a bimodal distribution of LVEF among patients with acute HF, with a lower proportion of patients with 40%<LVEF≤55%.12,26 Because the present study enrolled only patients with LVEF >50%, LVEF at baseline did not show a bimodal distribution, but in the overall NARA-HF Study 2 there was a similar a bimodal distribution (Figure S1). The clinical characteristics of patients with 50%≤LVEF<55% Figure 3. Change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from hospitalization to follow-up. The median change (interquartile range) was −1.40% (−3.03 to +2.23) in patients with ischemia and +0.90% (−1.31 to +2.65) in patients with heart failure of non-ischemic etiology (P=0.0174). were different from those with LVEF >55%. Consistent with prior studies,6,12,13 there was a much higher proportion of patients with ischemic etiology among patients with 50%<LVEF≤55%. Ischemic etiology was a strong predictor for transition from HFpEF to HFmrEF in the present study, as reported previously.12,13 In fact, the rate of LVEF decline was much higher among patients with ischemic etiology than in those with non-ischemic etiology (Figure 3). In addition, in patients with 50%<LVEF≤55%, LVEDV and LVESV during hospitalization were larger than in patients with LVEF >55%, and the percent increment of LVESV between the 2 echocar- Circulation Journal Vol.79, October 2015 2214 UEDA T et al. diography examinations was much greater than that of LVEDV. Thus, decline of LVEF in patients with 50%<LVEF≤55% was probably related to the increase in LVESV. These findings all suggest that there are qualitative differences in the pathophysiology and time course of LV dysfunction between patients with LVEF >55% and those with LVEF ≤55%. Patients whose LVEF had fallen to below 50% at follow-up were not confirmed as having a clinical episode of ischemic disease during follow-up. Moreover, the proportion of readmission for worsening of HF during follow-up was similar in patients with LVEF <50% at follow-up and those with LVEF ≥50% at follow-up (45% and 36%, respectively, P=0.5427). Also, in the univariate logistic regression analysis, readmission for worsening of HF was not a predictor of the decline in LVEF. Therefore, it is unlikely that additional ischemic events or worsening of HF during follow-up was the cause of the decline in LVEF in this study. Recently, some large randomized clinical trials in HFpEF patients with various therapeutic agents such as angiotensinreceptor blockers (CHARM-preserved, I-preserved),7,27 and mineralocorticoid receptor blocker (TOPCAT),28 failed to show beneficial effects of these drugs in HFpEF, although these agents have been proven to effectively reduce cardiovascular events in HFrEF. Of note, the inclusion criteria was LVEF >40% for the CHARM-preserved study and LVEF >45% for the I-preserved and TOPCAT studies; because a substantial number of patients with “grey area” LVEF were included, further analyses or subanalyses should be conducted with consideration of this. Study Limitations The major limitations are that the sample size was small, the study was retrospective in nature, and based at a single center. Approximately half of potentially eligible subjects were excluded for lack of echocardiography at follow-up, which might be a potential source of bias. Furthermore, we did not collect information on medications after discharge that can potentially affect LVEF. These factors underscore the need for future prospective studies of greater power, ideally controlled for medication regimens, that could further elucidate the natural history of HFpEF. Conclusions The present study showed that HFpEF patients with LVEF ≤55% were more likely to progress to HFmrEF in the future than those with LVEF >55%. This finding provides insights to the pathophysiology of HFpEF and suggests that patients with ischemic disease, who show 50%≤LVEF<55%, may actually have HFrEF and not HFpEF. A large-scale prospective study is necessary to confirm this hypothesis. Founding Source This work was supported in part by grants-in-aid from the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan, and Takeda Science Foundation. Conflicts of Interest Y.S. has conflicts of interest to disclose as follows. Honoraria: MSD Co, Ltd, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co, Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, Pfizer Japan Inc. Research funding: Japan Heart Foundation, The Naito Foundation Subsidies or Donations: MSD Co, Ltd, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, Novartis Pharma K.K., Shionogi & Co, Ltd, Astellas Pharma Inc, AstraZeneca K.K., Ltd, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, St. Jude Medical Japan Co, Ltd, Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co Ltd. Endowed departments by commercial entities: MSD Co, Ltd. Other authors have no financial conflicts of interest to disclose. References 1. The SOLVD Investigators. Effect of enalapril on mortality and the development of heart failure in asymptomatic patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions: The SOLVD Investigators. N Engl J Med 1992; 327: 685 – 691. 2. Pitt B, Zannad F, Remme WJ, Cody R, Castaigne A, Perez A, et al. The effect of spironolactone on morbidity and mortality in patients with severe heart failure: Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 709 – 717. 3. Granger CB, McMurray JJ, Yusuf S, Held P, Michelson EL, Olofsson B, et al. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function intolerant to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: The CHARM-Alternative trial. Lancet 2003; 362: 772 – 776. 4. Pitt B, Remme W, Zannad F, Neaton J, Martinez F, Roniker B, et al. Eplerenone, a selective aldosterone blocker, in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 1309 – 1321. 5. Hogg K, Swedberg K, McMurray J. Heart failure with preserved left ventricular systolic function; epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and prognosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43: 317 – 327. 6. Owan TE, Hodge DO, Herges RM, Jacobsen SJ, Roger VL, Redfield MM. Trends in prevalence and outcome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 251 – 259. 7. Massie BM, Carson PE, McMurray JJ, Komajda M, McKelvie R, Zile MR, et al. Irbesartan in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 2456 – 2467. 8. Bhatia RS, Tu JV, Lee DS, Austin PC, Fang J, Haouzi A, et al. Outcome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in a population-based study. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 260 – 269. 9. Somaratne JB, Berry C, McMurray JJ, Poppe KK, Doughty RN, Whalley GA. The prognostic significance of heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: A literature-based metaanalysis. Eur J Heart Fail 2009; 11: 855 – 862. 10. Hamaguchi S, Kinugawa S, Sobirin MA, Goto D, TsuchihashiMakaya M, Yamada S, et al. Mode of death in patients with heart failure and reduced vs. preserved ejection fraction: Report from the registry of hospitalized heart failure patients. Circ J 2012; 76: 1662 – 1669. 11. Kikuchi S, Wakami K, Goto T, Fukuta H, Sonoda H, Tani T, et al. Clinical significance of abnormal relaxation pattern of the transmitral flow velocity waveform in older patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. Circ J 2013; 77: 2551 – 2557. 12. Dunlay SM, Roger VL, Weston SA, Jiang R, Redfield MM. Longitudinal changes in ejection fraction in heart failure patients with preserved and reduced ejection fraction. Circ Heart Fail 2012; 5: 720 – 726. 13. Clarke CL, Grunwald GK, Allen LA, Baron AE, Peterson PN, Brand DW, et al. Natural history of left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with heart failure. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2013; 6: 680 – 686. 14. Ueda T, Kawakami R, Sugawara Y, Okada S, Nishida T, Onoue K, et al. Worsening of renal function during 1 year after hospital discharge is a strong and independent predictor of all-cause mortality in acute decompensated heart failure. J Am Heart Assoc 2014; 3: e001174, doi:10.1161/JAHA.114.001174. 15. Ueda T, Kawakami R, Horii M, Sugawara Y, Matsumoto T, Okada S, et al. High mean corpuscular volume is a new indicator of prognosis in acute decompensated heart failure. Circ J 2013; 77: 2766 – 2771. 16. Ueda T, Kawakami R, Nishida T, Onoue K, Soeda T, Okayama S, et al. Plasma renin activity is a strong and independent prognostic indicator in patients with acute decompensated heart failure treated with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors. Circ J 2015; 79: 1307 – 1314. 17. Ho KK, Pinsky JL, Kannel WB, Levy D. The epidemiology of heart failure: The Framingham Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993; 22: 6A – 13A. 18. McMurray JJ, Adamopoulos S, Anker SD, Auricchio A, Bohm M, Dickstein K, et al. ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology: Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 1787 – 1847. Circulation Journal Vol.79, October 2015 Longitudinal Changes From HFpEF to HFrEF 19. Steinberg BA, Zhao X, Heidenreich PA, Peterson ED, Bhatt DL, Cannon CP, et al. Trends in patients hospitalized with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: Prevalence, therapies, and outcomes. Circulation 2012; 126: 65 – 75. 20. Lee DS, Gona P, Vasan RS, Larson MG, Benjamin EJ, Wang TJ, et al. Relation of disease pathogenesis and risk factors to heart failure with preserved or reduced ejection fraction: Insights from the Framingham Heart Study of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Circulation 2009; 119: 3070 – 3077. 21. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE Jr, Drazner MH, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation 2013; 128: e240 – e327, doi:10.1161/CIR. 0b013e31829e8776. 22. Borlaug BA, Lam CS, Roger VL, Rodeheffer RJ, Redfield MM. Contractility and ventricular systolic stiffening in hypertensive heart disease insights into the pathogenesis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54: 410 – 418. 23. Garcia EH, Perna ER, Farias EF, Obregon RO, Macin SM, Parras JI, et al. Reduced systolic performance by tissue Doppler in patients with preserved and abnormal ejection fraction: New insights in chronic heart failure. Int J Cardiol 2006; 108: 181 – 188. 24. Kaku K, Takeuchi M, Otani K, Sugeng L, Nakai H, Haruki N, et al. Age- and gender-dependency of left ventricular geometry assessed with real-time three-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography. J 2215 Am Soc Echocardiogr 2011; 24: 541 – 547. 25. Chung AK, Das SR, Leonard D, Peshock RM, Kazi F, Abdullah SM, et al. Women have higher left ventricular ejection fractions than men independent of differences in left ventricular volume: The Dallas Heart Study. Circulation 2006; 113: 1597 – 1604. 26. Fonarow GC, Stough WG, Abraham WT, Albert NM, Gheorghiade M, Greenberg BH, et al. Characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of patients with preserved systolic function hospitalized for heart failure: A report from the OPTIMIZE-HF Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 50: 768 – 777. 27. Yusuf S, Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Granger CB, Held P, McMurray JJ, et al. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction: The CHARM-Preserved Trial. Lancet 2003; 362: 777 – 781. 28. Pitt B, Pfeffer MA, Assmann SF, Boineau R, Anand IS, Claggett B, et al. Spironolactone for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1383 – 1392. Supplementary Files Supplementary File 1 Figure S1. Distribution of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Please find supplementary file(s); http://dx.doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-15-0425 Circulation Journal Vol.79, October 2015