Search

Background: Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) is increased in comorbidities common in heart failure (HF). In this sense, EAT could potentially mediate effects that lead to an impaired cardiac function., Objectives: This meta-analysis aims to investigate if the amount of EAT in all-types of HF and each HF phenotype is significantly different from control patients., Methods: This meta-analysis followed the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. The search was performed in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Lilacs databases until November 2020. Two authors performed screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. A p-value <0.05 was defined as statistically significant., Results: Eight observational studies were included, comprehending 1,248 patients in total, from which 574 were controls, 415 had HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and 259 had HF with mid-range or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF or HFpEF). The amount of EAT was not different between all types of HF and the control group (SMD = -0.66, 95% CI: -1.54 to 0.23, p =0.14). Analyzing each HF phenotype separately, patients with HFrEF had a reduced EAT when compared to the controls (SMD= -1.27, 95% CI: - 1.87 to -0.67, p <0.0001), while patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF showed an increased EAT when compared to controls (SMD= 1.24, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.50, p <0.0001)., Conclusion: The amount of EAT was not significantly different between all types of HF and the control group. In patients with HFrEF, the EAT volume was reduced, whereas in HFpEF and HFmrEF, the amount of EAT was significantly increased. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019134441.

Background: The classification of heart failure (HF) by phenotypes has a great relevance in clinical practice., Objective: The study aimed to analyze the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes between HF phenotypes in the primary care setting., Methods: This is an analysis of a cohort study including 560 individuals, aged ≥ 45 years, who were randomly selected in a primary care program. All participants underwent clinical evaluations, b-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) measurements, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography in a single day. HF with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40% was classified as HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), LVEF 40% to 49% as HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and LVEF ≥ 50% as HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). After 5 years, the patients were reassessed as to the occurrence of the composite outcome of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular disease., Results: Of the 560 patients included, 51 patients had HF (9.1%), 11 of whom had HFrEF (21.6%), 10 had HFmrEF (19.6%) and 30 had HFpEF (58.8%). HFmrEF was similar to HFpEF in BNP levels (p < 0.001), left ventricular mass index (p = 0.037), and left atrial volume index (p < 0.001). The HFmrEF phenotype was similar to HFrEF regarding coronary artery disease (p = 0.009). After 5 years, patients with HFmrEF had a better prognosis when compared to patients with HFpEF and HFrEF (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: The prevalence of ICFEI was similar to that observed in previous studies. ICFEI presented characteristics similar to ICFEP in this study. Our data show that ICFEi had a better prognosis compared to the other two phenotypes.

In 2016, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recognized heart failure (HF) with ejection fraction between 40 and 49% as a new HF phenotype, HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), with the main purpose of encouraging studies on this new category. In 2018, the Brazilian Society of Cardiology adhered to this classification and introduced HFmrEF in Brazil. This paper presents a narrative review of what the literature has described about HFmrEF. The prevalence of patients with HFmrEF ranged from 13 to 24% of patients with HF. Analyzing the clinical characteristics, HFmrEF shows intermediate characteristics or is either similar to HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or to HF with reduced fraction (HFrEF). Regarding the prognosis, HFmrEF's all-cause mortality is similar to HFpEF's and lower than HFrEF's. Studies that analyzed cardiac mortality concluded that there was no significant difference between HFmrEF and HFrEF, both of which were lower than HFpEF. Despite the significant increase of publications on HFmrEF, there is a great scarcity of prospective studies and clinical trials that allow delineating specific therapies for this new phenotype. To better treat HFmrEF patients, it is fundamental that cardiologists and internists understand the differences and similarities of this new phenotype.