ABSTRACT
Background: Inflammation is one of the mechanisms involved in heart failure (HF) pathophysiology. Thus, the acute phase reactant protein, orosomucoid, was associated with a worse post-discharge prognosis in de novo acute HF (AHF). However, the presence of anti-inflammatory adipokine, omentin, might protect and reduce the severity of the disease. We wanted to evaluate the value of omentin and orosomucoid combination for stratifying the risk of these patients. Methods and Results: Two independent cohorts of patients admitted for de novo AHF in two centers were included in the study (n = 218). Orosomucoid and omentin circulating levels were determined by ELISA at discharge. Patients were followed-up for 317 (3-575) days. A predictive model was determined for the primary endpoint, death, and/or HF readmission. Differences in survival were evaluated using a Log-rank test. According to cut-off values of orosomucoid and omentin, patients were classified as UpDown (high orosomucoid and low omentin levels), equal (both proteins high or low), and DownUp (low orosomucoid and high omentin levels). The Kaplan Meier determined a worse prognosis for the UpDown group (Long-rank test p = 0.02). The predictive model that includes the combination of orosomucoid and omentin groups (OROME) + NT-proBNP values achieved a higher C-index = 0.84 than the predictive model with NT-proBNP (C-index = 0.80) or OROME (C-index = 0.79) or orosomucoid alone (C-index = 0.80). Conclusion: The orosomucoid and omentin determination stratifies de novo AHF patients into the high, mild, and low risk of rehospitalization and/or death for HF. Its combination with NT-proBNP improves its predictive value in this group of patients.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The magnitude and the prognostic impact of recovering left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure (HF) and systolic dysfunction is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients with HFrecEF in an HF population. METHODS: 449 consecutive patients were selected with the diagnosis of HF and an evaluation of LVEF in the 6 months prior to selection who were referred to two HF units. Patients with systolic dysfunction were only considered if a second echocardiogram was performed during the follow-up. RESULTS: At the time of diagnosis, 207 patients had LVEF > 40% (HFpEF) and 242 had LVEF ≤ 40% (HFrEF). After 1 year, the LVEF was re-evaluated in all 242 patients with a LVEF ≤ 40%: in 126 (52%), the second LVEF was > 40% (HFrecEF), and the remaining 116 (48%) had LVEF ≤ 40% (HFrEF). After 1800 ± 900 days of follow-up patients with recovered LVEF had a significantly lower mortality rate (HFpEF vs. HFrecEF: hazard ratio [HR] = 2.286, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.264-4.145, p = 0.019; HFrEF vs. HFrecEF: HR = 2.222, 95% CI 1.189-4.186, p < 0.001) and hospitalization rate (HFpEF vs. HFrecEF: HR = 1.411, 95% CI 1.046-1.903, p = 0.024; HFrEF vs. HFrecEF: HR = 1.388, 95% CI 1.002-1.924, p = 0.049). The following are predictors of LVEF recovery: younger age, lower functional class, treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and beta-blockers, absence of defibrillator use, and non-ischemic etiology. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HF and reduced LVEF who were re-evaluated after 1 year, had significant improvement in their LVEF and had a more favourable prognosis than HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction.
