Unveiling the clinical profiles of heart failure across diverse stages and phenotypes: insights from the national echocardiographic society registry
Authors: Stefanovic M , Stankovic I , Ciric N , Krljanac G , Apostolovic S , Bijelic S , Vranic I , Maric Kocijancic J , Djordjevic Radojkovic D , Vratonjic J , Zlatkovic M , Milic G , Nikolic D , Srdanovic I , Trifunovic Zamaklar D 
Published: October 2024

Background

The modern comprehension of heart failure (HF), based on a staging paradigm, demands systematic screening to promptly identify individuals at risk, those in the pre-HF stage, and symptomatic HF patients across various phenotypes (HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF). The discernment of clinical profiles within these categories holds significant potential for improving screening and ensuring timely therapeutic interventions.

Material and Methods

Our national echocardiographic society executed a multicenter HF screening program. General practitioners in 13 primary care centers utilized the original mobile app to determine referrals for transthoracic echocardiography and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) testing in patients without a prior HF diagnosis. The 2021 ESC guidelines' algorithms were employed for HF diagnosis (HFpEF, HFmrEF, HFrEF). This study identifies two pre-heart failure (pre-HF) stages: "heart stress" (elevated NT-proBNP in asymptomatic individuals with risk factors, regardless of structural heart disease or cardiac dysfunction) and individuals "at risk for HF" (normal NTproBNP and at least one HF risk factor). Ultimately, all patients were categorized into six groups: (I) no HF, no risk; (II) at risk for HF; (III) heart stress; (IV) HFpEF; (V) HFmrEF; and (VI) HFrEF. Subsequently, the eleven clinical variables were compared among groups (II) to (VI) using chi-square test.

Results

Among 930 screened outpatients (mean age 66±11 years, 61% female), diagnosis of HF was established in 34.2% (Figure, pie). Heart stress was found in 22.3% patients, and 38.1% were at risk for HF, while 5.5 % had neither HF nor risk factors. Group comparison revealed that older individuals were more frequent in the HFpEF group, females predominated in the heart-stress and HFpEF groups, and males in the HFrEF group (Figure, table). Obesity was the most frequent among those at risk and HFmrEF. Atrial fibrillation and pathological ECG increased gradually from those at risk to HFrEF. Previous MI was the most common in heart stress and HFmrEF groups, while arterial hypertension &gt;10 years prevailed in HFpEF and HFmrEF patients. Diabetes mellitus &gt; 5 years was present in 24-28% across groups. CKD or eGFR≤60 ml/min/1.73m² increased gradually towards HFmrEF. The family history of CMP or SCD was positive in 17-24%, with no significant differences observed across groups. Additionally, a small number of patients had a history of previous cardiotoxic cancer treatment, and no significant differences were found between groups.

Conclusions

The mobile phone application used in primary care successfully identified a significant number of pre-heart failure patients requiring further evaluation. Different HF stages and phenotypes exhibit distinct clinical profiles, aiding in the screening process and contributing to a deeper understanding of the heart's pathophysiological adaptation to diverse risk factors during HF development.