Left ventricular ejection fraction digit bias and reclassification of heart failure with mildly reduced vs reduced ejection fraction based on the 2021 definition and classification of heart failure - 07/12/23
, Paolo Gatti, MD a, #, Lina Benson, MSc a, Marianna Adamo, MD c, Ovidiu Chioncel, MD d, Maria G. Crespo-Leiro, MD PhD e, Stefan D. Anker, MD PhD f, Andrew J.S. Coats, MD PhD g, Gerasimos Filippatos, MD PhD h, Mitja Lainscak, MD PhD i, Theresa McDonagh, MD PhD j, Alexandre Mebazaa, MD PhD k, l, Marco Metra, MD PhD c, Massimo F. Piepoli, MD PhD m, Giuseppe M.C. Rosano, MD PhD n, Frank Ruschitzka, MD PhD o, Petar Seferovic, MD PhD p, Maurizio Volterrani, MD PhD q, Aldo P. Maggioni, MD PhD r, Lars H. Lund, MD PhD a, bABSTRACT |
Aims |
Aims were to evaluate (1) reclassification of patients from heart failure with mildly reduced (HFmrEF) to reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction when an EF = 40% was considered as HFrEF, (2) role of EF digit bias, ie, EF reporting favouring 5% increments; (3) outcomes in relation to missing and biased EF reports, in a large multinational HF registry.
Methods and results |
Of 25,154 patients in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) HF Long-Term registry, 17% had missing EF and of those with available EF, 24% had HFpEF (EF≥50%), 21% HFmrEF (40%-49%) and 55% HFrEF (<40%) according to the 2016 ESC guidelines´ classification. EF was “exactly” 40% in 7%, leading to reclassifying 34% of the HFmrEF population defined as EF = 40% to 49% to HFrEF when applying the 2021 ESC Guidelines classification (14% had HFmrEF as EF = 41% to 49% and 62% had HFrEF as EF≤40%). EF was reported as a value ending with 0 or 5 in ∼37% of the population. Such potential digit bias was associated with more missing values for other characteristics and higher risk of all-cause death and HF hospitalization. Patients with missing EF had higher risk of all-cause and CV mortality, and HF hospitalization compared to those with recorded EF.
Conclusions |
Many patients had reported EF = 40%. This led to substantial reclassification of EF from old HFmrEF (40%-49%) to new HFrEF (≤40%). There was considerable digit bias in EF reporting and missing EF reporting, which appeared to occur not at random and may reflect less rigorous overall care and worse outcomes.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Graphical abstract |
Graph of heart failure ejection fraction subpopulation prevalence with the percentage of reclassification due to change in definition from 2016 to 2021 with the cumulative incidence of outcomes by ejection fraction subtype and graph of ejection fraction measurement distribution with Kaplan-Meier curves of outcomes by digit bias. Legend: Cardiovascular death (CVD), ejection fraction (EF), heart failure (HF), heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
Plan
Vol 267
P. 52-61 - janvier 2024 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- Long-term risk of reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement
- Suzanne J. Baron, Michael P. Ryan, Soumya G. Chikermane, Christin Thompson, Seth Clancy, Candace L. Gunnarsson
- Effects of complete revascularization according to age in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (COMPLETE-AGE)
- Kevin R. Bainey, David A. Wood, Matthias Bossard, Gianluca Campo, Warren J. Cantor, Shahar Lavi, Mina Madan, Roxana Mehran, Natalia Pinilla-Echeverri, Sunil Rao, Jaydeep Sarma, Tej Sheth, Goran Stankovic, Phillipe Gabriel Steg, Robert F. Storey, Jean-Francois Tanguay, James L. Velianou, Robert C. Welsh, Thenmozhi Mani, John A. Cairns, Shamir R. Mehta, COMPLETE trial investigators
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?