Prospective longitudinal follow‐up of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) trajectories after acute cardiac decompensation of heart failure is lacking. We investigated changes in LVEF and covariates at 6‐months' follow‐up in patients with a predischarge LVEF ≤40%, and determined predictors and prognostic implications of LVEF changes through 18‐months' follow‐up. Methods and Results Interdisciplinary Network Heart Failure program participants (n=633) were categorized into subgroups based on LVEF at 6‐months' follow‐up: normalized LVEF (>50%; heart failure with normalized ejection fraction, n=147); midrange LVEF (41%–50%; heart failure with midrange ejection fraction, n=195), or persistently reduced LVEF (≤40%; heart failure with persistently reduced LVEF , n=291). All received guideline‐directed medical therapies. At 6‐months' follow‐up, compared with patients with heart failure with persistently reduced LVEF, heart failure with normalized LVEF or heart failure with midrange LVEF subgroups showed greater reductions in LV end‐diastolic/end‐systolic diameters (both P<0.001), and left atrial systolic diameter (P=0.002), more increased septal/posterior end‐diastolic wall‐thickness (both P<0.001), and significantly greater improvement in diastolic function, biomarkers, symptoms, and health status. Heart failure duration <1 year, female sex, higher predischarge blood pressure, and baseline LVEF were independent predictors of LVEF improvement. Mortality and event‐free survival rates were lower in patients with heart failure with normalized LVEF (P=0.002). Overall, LVEF increased further at 18‐months' follow‐up (P<0.001), while LV end‐diastolic diameter decreased (P=0.048). However, LVEF worsened (P=0.002) and LV end‐diastolic diameter increased (P=0.047) in patients with heart failure with normalized LVEF hospitalized between 6‐months' follow‐up and 18‐months' follow‐up. Conclusions Six‐month survivors of acute cardiac decompensation for systolic heart failure showed variable LVEF trajectories, with >50% showing improvements by ≥1 LVEF category. LVEF changes correlated with various parameters, suggesting multilevel reverse remodeling, were predictable from several baseline characteristics, and were associated with clinical outcomes at 18‐months' follow‐up. Repeat hospitalizations were associated with attenuation of reverse remodeling."

Background: To assess heart failure therapies in diabetic patients with preserved as compared to impaired systolic ventricular function. Methods: 3304 patients with heart failure from 9 different studies were included (mean age 63 +/- 14 years); out of these, 711 subjects had preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (>= 50%) and 994 patients in the whole cohort suffered from diabetes. Results: The majority (>90%) of heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (SHF) and diabetes were treated with an ACE inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) or with beta-blockers. By contrast, patients with diabetes and preserved ejection fraction (HFNEF) were less likely to receive these substance classes (p < 0.001) and had a worse blood pressure control (p < 0.001). In comparison to patients without diabetes, the probability to receive these therapies was increased in diabetic HFNEF patients (p < 0.001), but not in diabetic SHF patients. Aldosterone receptor blockers were given more often to diabetic patients with reduced ejection fraction (p < 0.001), and the presence and severity of diabetes decreased the probability to receive this substance class, irrespective of renal function. Conclusions: Diabetic patients with HFNEF received less heart failure medication and showed a poorer control of blood pressure as compared to diabetic patients with SHF. SHF patients with diabetes were less likely to receive aldosterone receptor blocker therapy, irrespective of renal function.

Background Comorbidities negatively affect prognosis more strongly in heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) than with reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction. Their comparative impact on physical impairment in HFpEF and HFrEF has not been evaluated so far. Methods and results The frequency of 12 comorbidities and their impact on NYHA class and SF-36 physical functioning score (SF-36 PF) were evaluated in 1,294 patients with HFpEF and 2,785 with HFrEF. HFpEF patients had lower NYHA class (2.0 ± 0.6 vs. 2.4 ± 0.6, p < 0.001) and higher SF-36 PF score (54.4 ± 28.3 vs. 54.4 ± 27.7, p < 0.001). All comorbidities were significantly (p < 0.05) more frequent in HFrEF, except hypertension and obesity, which were more frequent in HFpEF (p < 0.001). Adjusting for age and gender, COPD, anemia, hyperuricemia, atrial fibrillation, renal dysfunction, cerebrovascular disease and diabetes had a similar (p for interaction > 0.05) negative effect in both groups. Obesity, coronary artery disease and peripheral arterial occlusive disease exerted a significantly (p < 0.05) more adverse effect in HFpEF, while hypertension and hyperlipidemia were associated with fewer (p < 0.05) symptoms in HFrEF only. The total impact of comorbidities on NYHA (AUC for prediction of NYHA III/IV vs. I/II) and SF-36 PF (r 2) in multivariate analyses was approximately 1.5-fold higher in HFpEF, and also much stronger than the impact of a 10% decrease in ejection fraction in HFrEF or a 5 mm decrease in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter in HFpEF. Conclusion The impact of comorbidities on physical impairment is higher in HFpEF than in HFrEF. This should be considered in the differential diagnosis and in the treatment of patients with HFpEF.