Heart failure with preserved left ventricular systolic function: a hospital cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how patients with heart failure with preserved left ventricular systolic function (LVSF) compare with patients with reduced LVSF.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

Urban university hospital.

PATIENTS

528 index emergency admissions with heart failure during the year 2000. Information on LVSF and follow up was available for 445 (84%) of these patients.

RESULTS

130 (29%) patients had preserved LVSF (defined as an ejection fraction > 40%). The median follow up was 814 days (range 632-978 days). The average (SD) age was 72 (13) years. Women accounted for 62% and 45% of patients with preserved and reduced LVSF, respectively (p = 0.001). Patients with preserved LVSF (compared with those with reduced LVSF) had a higher prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy (56% v 29%) and aortic valve disease (mean gradient > 20 mm Hg; 31% v 9%). Fewer patients with preserved LVSF received an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (65% v 78%, p = 0.008) or spironolactone (12% v 21%, p = 0.027). Anaemia tended to occur more often in patients with preserved LVSF than in those with reduced LVSF (43% v 33% for women, p = 0.12; 59% v 49% for men, p = 0.22). There was a similarly high prevalence of significant renal dysfunction in both groups (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 in 68% with preserved and 64% with reduced LVSF, p = 0.40). Mortality was similar in both groups (preserved versus reduced 51 (39%) v 132 (42%), p = 0.51). Compared with patients with reduced LVSF, patients with preserved LVSF tended to have a lower risk of death or hospital admission for heart failure (56 (42%) v 165 (53%), p = 0.072) but a similar rate of death or readmission for any reason.

CONCLUSION

Patients with preserved LVSF had more co-morbid problems than those with reduced LVSF; however, prognosis was similar for both groups.