Geographical variation in patient characteristics and outcomes in heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction

• Published in: European journal of heart failure Vol. 26; no. 8; pp. 1788 - 1803
• Main Authors: Yang, Mingming, Kondo, Toru, Jhund, Pardeep S., Alcocer‐Gamba, Marco Antonio, Borleffs, C. Jan Willem, Chiang, Chern‐En, Comin‐Colet, Josep, Desai, Akshay S., Dobreanu, Dan, Drożdż, Jarosław, Han, Yaling, Janssens, Stefan P., Katova, Tzvetana, Kosiborod, Mikhail N., Lam, Carolyn S.P., Merkely, Béla, Pham, Vinh Nguyen, Thierer, Jorge, Vaduganathan, Muthiah, Verma, Subodh, Solomon, Scott D., McMurray, John J.V.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 01.08.2024
• Subjects: Aged; Clinical trial; Clinical Trials as Topic; Europe - epidemiology; Female; Geographic variation; Heart failure; Heart Failure - epidemiology; Heart Failure - physiopathology; HFmrEF; HFpEF; Hospitalization - statistics & numerical data; Humans; Latin America - epidemiology; Male; Middle Aged; North America - epidemiology; Prevalence; Stroke Volume - physiology; North America; Europe; Latin America; Heart failure; Clinical trial; Geographic variation; HFpEF; HFmrEF
• ISSN: 1388-9842; 1879-0844; 1879-0844
• DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.3352

Aims Compared to heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) are increasing in prevalence, yet little is known about the geographic variation in patient characteristics, treatments and outcomes among these two HF phenotypes. The aim of this study was to investigate geographic differences in HFpEF and HFmrEF. Methods and results We conducted an individual patient analysis of five clinical trials enrolling patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF from North America (NA), Latin America (LA), Western Europe (WE), Central/Eastern Europe and Russia (CEER), and Asia‐Pacific (AP). We compared regions using descriptive statistics and multivariable regression models. Among the 19 959 patients included, 4066 (23.1%) had HFmrEF and 15 353 (76.9%) HFpEF. Regardless of HF phenotype, patients from WE were oldest, and those in CEER youngest. LA had the largest portion of females and NA most black patients. Obesity and diabetes were most prevalent in NA and hypertension and coronary heart disease most common in CEER. Self‐reported health status varied strikingly and was the worst in NA and best in AP. Among patients with HFmrEF, rates of the primary composite endpoint (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization) were: NA 12.56 per 100 patient‐years (/100py), AP 11.67/100py, CEER 10.12/100py, LA 8.90/100py, and WE 8.43/100py, driven by differences in the rate of HF hospitalization. The corresponding values in HFpEF were 11.47/100py, 7.80/100py, 5.47/100py, 5.92/100py, and 7.80/100py, respectively. Conclusions There is substantial geographic variation in patient characteristics, treatment and outcomes among patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF. These findings have implications for interpretation and generalizability of trial results, design and conduct of future trials, and optimization of care for these patients. Regions, characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) with mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). (A) Map showing the distribution of patients of the trials included. Cardiovascular (CV) death and first HF hospitalization events in patients with HFmrEF (B) and with HFpEF (C). AP, Asia‐Pacific; CEER, Central/Eastern Europe and Russia; LA, Latin America; NA, North America; WE, Western Europe.