European Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine

Failure of heart functioning is an escalating issue on a global scale [1-4]. The occurrence and chances of heart failure is increasing as a result of the aging population, improved survival rates after heart attacks, and advancements in heart failure therapy [1-4]. This phenomenon is resulting in an increase in the number of people being admitted to hospitals and the associated expenses. It is projected that these hospitalizations and expenditures will grow by 127% by the year 2030 [5-7]. Managing HF is challenging, resulting in many hospitalizations and fatalities [8-12]. Medical professionals often use a diagnostic test known as LVEF to evaluate, diagnose, and strategize therapy for heart failure [13]. LVEF is quantified via an echocardiography, a diagnostic procedure that uses ultrasound technology to see the heart. Although the measurement of LVEF provides some insight, it is not a complete indicator of the prognosis for individuals with heart failure [13]. Machine learning algorithms have the capability to provide more accurate risk predictions compared to relying just on LVEF [13]. Nevertheless, LVEF remains the primary method for categorizing heart failure in medical practices and scientific investigations [6, 14-17]. Heart failure may be classified into many kinds depending on the LVEF. HFrEF is below 40%. This condition has effective therapies available. HFpEF, on the other hand, is 50% or more. Treating HFpEF is more challenging. HFmrE, refers to cases where the left ventricular ejection fraction is between 40-49%. This condition is a combination of HFrEF and HFpEF. Recent research indicates that HFmrEF has greater resemblance to HFrEF, leading some to refer to it as "heart failure with relatively weak pump" [18-20].

Researchers compared individuals with heart failure who had varying ejection fractions via the use of a retrospective cohort study. The research looked at medical records of 165 patients who had HFrEF, HFpEF, and HFmrEF over a period of previous years. The emphasis of the study was to analyze the differences in patient characteristics, disease progression, and treatment responses among these patients. The data gathered and evaluated included information on the demographics of the patients, their medical histories, and the results of their treatments, including the efficacy of inhibitors. The results were analyzed using SPSS software.

Table 1:  Parameter analysis

Table 1: The chart indicates that midrange has a prevalence ranging from 10% to 25%. It combines features of both preserved and reduced and is associated with a high occurrence of ischemic heart disease. Failure of heart working with preservation is characterized by a maintained ejection fraction, varying prevalence, and a usually lower occurrence of non-cardiovascular negative events. On the other hand, reduced is characterized by a decreased ejection fraction, a high incidence of ischemic heart disease, and the greatest risk of cardiovascular events.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis

Table 2: The comparison study reveals statistically significant disparities in the prevalence, clinical features, and incidence of ischemic heart disease between midrange and preserved fractions in heart failure (p < 0.05). Mid-range exhibits significant disparities in clinical features and treatment response in comparison to HFrEF (p < 0.05).

Table 3: Demography variable analysis

Table 3: The examination of demographic variables reveals notable disparities across the categories, with HFpEF patients often being more advanced in age and exhibiting elevated systole pressure in the blood and BMI in comparison to the reduced and recovered groups. Significantly, there are differences in medical records, as preserved patients have a greater occurrence of hypertension and diabetes.

Treatment for HFrEF involves the use of medications such as renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, beta-blockers, MRAs, ARNIs, and SGLT2 [5, 21]. Preserved fractions poses more challenges in treatment and lacks effective medicines. Failure of heart with mid-range blood fraction falls between reduced fraction and preserved fraction, and has a restricted range of therapy options [4, 21]. RAS inhibitors, beta-blockers, and MRAs may be beneficial for treating mid-range fraction, while the available data is inconclusive [21]. Mid-range fraction patients often get these medications as a result of comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, and arrhythmia [6, 21]. Diuretics, sometimes known as water tablets, are frequently used to alleviate symptoms of heart failure, irrespective of the power of the heart's pumping ability [8-9, 21].

Individuals with a moderately weakened heart mid-range fraction may have had an improvement from a severely weakened heart reduced fraction and may still get advantages from medications typically used for reduced fraction [21]. Research indicates that some medications, such as candesartan and spironolactone, may become less effective as the heart becomes stronger Research has shown the promising potential of SGLT2 inhibitors in treating mid-range, a condition characterized by hearts of varying strengths. Current research is examining the efficacy of additional medications such as MRAs and SGLT2 inhibitors for both mid-range and preserved blood fraction (normal heart strength) [21]. Although there is increasing evidence supporting therapies for HFmrEF, more research is necessary to provide unambiguous recommendations [21]. Presently, there is a tendency to approach mid-range in a similar manner as reduced fraction, with an emphasis on symptom management and addressing underlying medical issues [21].

The data analysis of heart failure subtypes demonstrates clear disparities across HFmrEF, HFpEF, and HFrEF. HFmrEF, with a frequency ranging from 10% to 25%, has clinical characteristics that include elements of both HFpEF and HFrEF. It is often associated with ischemic heart disease and shows a treatment response comparable to drugs used for HFrEF. HFpEF is a condition where the heart's ability to pump blood is maintained, resulting in decreased risks of cardiovascular events and reduced effectiveness of therapies specifically designed for HFrEF. HFrEF has the greatest risk of cardiovascular events and shows favorable response to drugs specifically designed for HFrEF. Demographic data reveals that patients with HFrEF tend to be younger and have a greater prevalence of CAD and hypertension compared to patients with HFpEF and HFrecEF. In contrast, HFpEF and HFrecEF patients are often older, have higher body mass indices, and have diverse responses to treatment.

1. Conrad N, et al. Temporal trends and patterns in heart failure incidence: a population-based study of 4 million individuals. Lancet. 2018;391:572-80.
2. Jernberg T, et al. Association between adoption of evidence-based treatment and survival for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2011;305:1677-84.
3. van Riet EE, et al. Epidemiology of heart failure: the prevalence of heart failure and ventricular dysfunction in older adults over time. A systematic review. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18:242-52.
4. Taylor CJ, et al. Trends in survival after a diagnosis of heart failure in the United Kingdom 2000–2017: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2019;364
5. Yancy CW, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA focused update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. Circulation. 2017;136
6. Ponikowski P, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2129-200.
7. Virani SS, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics: 2021 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2021;143
8. Thorvaldsen T, Benson L, Dahlstrom U, Edner M, Lund LH. Use of evidence-based therapy and survival in heart failure in Sweden 2003–2012. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18:503-11.
9. Ambrosy AP, et al. The global health and economic burden of hospitalizations for heart failure: lessons learned from hospitalized heart failure registries. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 63:1123-33.
10. Lund LH, Benson L, Dahlstrom U, Edner M. Association between use of renin angiotensin system antagonists and mortality in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. JAMA. 2012;308:2108-17.
11. Lund LH, et al. Association between enrolment in a heart failure quality registry and subsequent mortality — a nationwide cohort study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2017;19:1107-16.
12. Crespo-Leiro MG, et al. Advanced heart failure: a position statement of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail. 2018;20:1505-35.
13. Ahmad T, et al. Machine learning methods improve prognostication, identify clinically distinct phenotypes, and detect heterogeneity in response to therapy in a large cohort of heart failure patients. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7
14. Lund LH. Heart failure with “mid-range” ejection fraction — new opportunities. J Card Fail. 2016;22:769-71.
15. Lund LH, Vedin O, Savarese G. Is ejection fraction in heart failure a limitation or an opportunity? Eur J Heart Fail. 2018;20:431-2.
16. Marwick TH. Ejection fraction pros and cons: JACC state-of-the-art review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:2360-79.
17. Bhatt DL, et al. Sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and recent worsening heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2020;384:117-28.
18. Lam CS, Solomon SD. The middle child in heart failure: heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (40–50%). Eur J Heart Fail. 2014;16:1049-55.
19. Bozkurt B, et al. Universal definition and classification of heart failure: a report of the Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Japanese Heart Failure Society and Writing Committee of the Universal Definition of Heart Failure: Endorsed by Canadian Heart Failure Society, Heart Failure Association of India, the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, and the Chinese Heart Failure Association. Eur J Heart Fail. 2021;23:352-80.
20. Lam CS, Voors AA, Piotr P, McMurray JJ, Solomon SD. Time to rename the middle child of heart failure: heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction. Eur Heart J. 2020;41:2353-5.
21. Savarese G, Stolfo D, Sinagra G, Lund LH. Heart failure with mid-range or mildly reduced ejection fraction. Nature Reviews Cardiology. 2021 Sep 6;19(2).