Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Background: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients who have improved ejection fraction have a better prognosis than those with persistently reduced ejection fraction. This study aimed to analyze the predictors for progression of patients with HFrEF to heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF), as well as their characteristics and analyze predictors for prognosis. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 1251 patients with HFrEF at baseline, who also had a second echocardiogram 3 months. After left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) reassessment, patients were separated into the HFimpEF group (n = 408) and the persistent HFrEF group (n = 611). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. Results: Multivariate logistic regression showed that without history of alcohol consumption (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.28–0.78), non-New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III–IV (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.15–0.52), without dilated cardiomyopathy (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.26–0.84), concomitant hypertension (OR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.02–2.29), -blockers use (OR: 2.29, 95% CI: 1.54–3.43), and lower uric acid (OR: 0.999, 95% CI: 0.997–1.000) could predict LVEF improvement. Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated that HFimpEF patients had a significantly lower incidence of adverse events than HFrEF patients (log Rank p 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression found that older age (HR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.02–1.06), NYHA class III–IV (HR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.28–3.95), concomitant valvular heart disease (HR: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.01–3.85), and higher creatinine (HR: 1.003, 95% CI: 1.001–1.004) were independent risk factors for the primary endpoint in HFimpEF patients. Conclusions: HFrEF patients without a history of alcohol consumption, non-NYHA class III–IV, without dilated cardiomyopathy, concomitant hypertension, -blockers use, and lower uric acid were more likely to have LVEF improvement. Although the prognosis of HFimpEF patients was better than that of HFrEF patients, older age, NYHA class III–IV, concomitant valvular heart disease, and higher creatinine were still risk factors for cardiovascular events in HFimpEF patients.
Background: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients who have improved ejection fraction have a better prognosis than those with persistently reduced ejection fraction. This study aimed to analyze the predictors for progression of patients with HFrEF to heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF), as well as their characteristics and analyze predictors for prognosis. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 1251 patients with HFrEF at baseline, who also had a second echocardiogram 3 months. After left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) reassessment, patients were separated into the HFimpEF group (n = 408) and the persistent HFrEF group (n = 611). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. Results: Multivariate logistic regression showed that without history of alcohol consumption (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.28–0.78), non-New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III–IV (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.15–0.52), without dilated cardiomyopathy (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.26–0.84), concomitant hypertension (OR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.02–2.29), -blockers use (OR: 2.29, 95% CI: 1.54–3.43), and lower uric acid (OR: 0.999, 95% CI: 0.997–1.000) could predict LVEF improvement. Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated that HFimpEF patients had a significantly lower incidence of adverse events than HFrEF patients (log Rank p 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression found that older age (HR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.02–1.06), NYHA class III–IV (HR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.28–3.95), concomitant valvular heart disease (HR: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.01–3.85), and higher creatinine (HR: 1.003, 95% CI: 1.001–1.004) were independent risk factors for the primary endpoint in HFimpEF patients. Conclusions: HFrEF patients without a history of alcohol consumption, non-NYHA class III–IV, without dilated cardiomyopathy, concomitant hypertension, -blockers use, and lower uric acid were more likely to have LVEF improvement. Although the prognosis of HFimpEF patients was better than that of HFrEF patients, older age, NYHA class III–IV, concomitant valvular heart disease, and higher creatinine were still risk factors for cardiovascular events in HFimpEF patients.
Macrophages are most important immune cell population in the heart. Cardiac macrophages have broad-spectrum and heterogeneity, with two extreme polarization phenotypes: M1 pro-inflammatory macrophages (CCR2-ly6Chi) and M2 anti-inflammatory macrophages (CCR2-ly6Clo). Cardiac macrophages can reshape their polarization states or phenotypes to adapt to their surrounding microenvironment by altering metabolic reprogramming. The phenotypes and polarization states of cardiac macrophages can be defined by specific signature markers on the cell surface, including tumor necrosis factor α, interleukin (IL)-1β, inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS), C-C chemokine receptor type (CCR)2, IL-4 and arginase (Arg)1, among them, CCR2+/- is one of most important markers which is used to distinguish between resident and non-resident cardiac macrophage as well as macrophage polarization states. Dedicated balance between M1 and M2 cardiac macrophages are crucial for maintaining heart development and cardiac functional and electric homeostasis, and imbalance between macrophage phenotypes may result in heart ventricular remodeling and various heart diseases. The therapy aiming at specific target on macrophage phenotype is a promising strategy for treatment of heart diseases. In this article, we comprehensively review cardiac macrophage phenotype, metabolic reprogramming, and their role in maintaining heart health and mediating ventricular remodeling and potential therapeutic strategy in heart diseases.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.