Aims Clinical data on the prognostic determinants over varying periods within the same cohort of heart failure with mid‐range or mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) remain scarce. This study aimed to identify the short‐term, intermediate‐term, and long‐term risk factors of adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in patients hospitalized for HFmrEF. Methods and results This retrospective study included 1691 consecutive HFmrEF patients admitted to our hospital between January 2015 and August 2020. Baseline data including clinical characteristics, laboratory and cardiac imaging examinations were obtained. Patients completed at least 1 year clinical follow‐up after discharge by telephone interview, clinical visit, or community visit. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite of CV death or rehospitalization for heart failure (CV events) at 3, 12, and 33 months after the diagnosis of HFmrEF. Mean age of the whole cohort was 69 (61–77) years and 64.8% were male. The median clinical follow‐up was 33 (20–50) months. CV events were 17.5%, 28.2%, and 57.8% at 3, 12, and 33 months after discharge, respectively. Independent risk factors for CV events were uric acid >382 μmol/L, creatinine >100 μmol/L, N‐terminal pro‐B type natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) > 3368 pg/mL and haemoglobin <120 g/L for men and <110 g/L for women at 3 and 12 months. Pulmonary artery systolic pressure >35 mmHg and the ratio of early transmitral flow velocity to early mitral annular velocity >18 served as independent risk factors for CV events at 12 months. At 33 months, uric acid > 382 μmol/L, NT‐proBNP >3368 pg/mL, and pulmonary artery systolic pressure >35 mmHg were the independent risk factors of CV events. Conclusions Higher uric acid, creatinine, NT‐proBNP, and lower haemoglobin levels at baseline are valuable serum biomarkers for risk stratification of short‐term and long‐term CV outcomes of HFmrEF patients. Future studies are needed to verify if intensive heart failure therapy for identified high‐risk HFmrEF patients based on these four serum biomarkers could improve their short‐term and long‐term CV outcomes or not.

Chronic heart failure is one of the common causes of hospitalization and death. Pulmonary congestion is the common disease feature of patients with chronic heart failure, which could be correctly diagnosed by lung ultrasound. Efficacy of lung ultrasound‐guided pulmonary congestion management for patients with acute heart failure is well documented, however, more evidence is needed to establish the clinical value of pulmonary congestion detection by lung ultrasound examination in patients with chronic heart failure. This review summarized current evidence related to the use and clinical value of pulmonary congestion assessment by lung ultrasound in patients with chronic heart failure, aiming to provide new suggestions on promoting the widespread use of lung ultrasound in patients with chronic heart failure to improve the quality of life and outcome of patients with chronic heart failure.

Aims Pulmonary congestion (PC) expressed by residual lung ultrasound B-lines (LUS-BL) could exist in some discharged heart failure (HF) patients, which is a known determinant of poor outcomes. Detection efficacy for PC is suboptimal with widely used imaging modalities, like X-ray or echocardiography, while lung ultrasound (LUS) can sufficiently detect PC by visualizing LUS-BL. In this trial, we sought to evaluate the impact LUS-BL-guided intensive HF management post-discharge on outcome of HF patients discharged with residual LUS-BL up to 1 year after discharge. IMP-OUTCOME is a prospective, single-centre, single-blinded, randomized cohort study, which is designed to investigate if LUS-BL-guided intensive HF management post-discharge in patients with residual LUS-BL could improve the clinical outcome up to 1 year after discharge or not. Methods and resultsAfter receiving the standardized treatment of HF according to current guidelines, 318 patients with ≥3 LUS-BL assessed by LUS within 48 h before discharge will be randomly divided into the conventional HF management group and the LUS-BL-guided intensive HF management group at 1:1 ratio. Patient-related basic clinical data including sex, age, blood chemistry, imaging examination, and drug utilization will be obtained and analysed. LUS-BL will be assessed at 2 month interval post-discharge in both groups, but LUS-BL results will be enveloped in the conventional HF management group, and diuretics will be adjusted based on symptom and physical examination results with or without knowing the LUS-BL results. Echocardiography examination will be performed for all patients at 12 month post-discharge. The primary endpoint is consisted of the composite of readmission for worsening HF and all-cause death during follow up as indicated. The secondary endpoints consisted of the change in the New York Heart Association classification, Duke Activity Status Index, N terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide value, malignant arrhythmia event and 6 min walk distance at each designed follow up, echocardiography-derived left ventricular ejection fraction, and number of LUS-BL at 12 month post-discharge. Safety profile will be recorded and managed accordingly for all patients. Conclusions This trial will explore the impact of LUS-BL-guided intensive HF management on the outcome of discharged HF patients with residual LUS-BL up to 1 year after discharge in the era of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blocker-neprilysin inhibitor. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05035459