In order to bring you the best possible user experience, this site uses Javascript. If you are seeing this message, it is likely that the Javascript option in your browser is disabled. For optimal viewing of this site, please ensure that Javascript is enabled for your browser.

The free consultation period for this content is over.

It is now only available year-round to HFA Silver & Gold Members, Fellows of the ESC and Young combined Members

Comparative study of patients with heart failure with ejection fraction in the mid range and patients with preserved ejection fraction: management and prognosis

Session Poster Session 3

Speaker Daniel Enriquez Vazquez

Event : Heart Failure 2019

  • Topic : heart failure
  • Sub-topic : Heart Failure with Mid-range Ejection Fraction
  • Session type : Poster Session

Authors : D Enriquez Vazquez (Madrid,ES), CN Perez Garcia (Madrid,ES), M Ferrandez Escarabajal (Madrid,ES), A Travieso Gonzalez (Madrid,ES), TS Luque Diaz (Madrid,ES), C Olmos Blanco (Madrid,ES), D Vivas Balcones (Madrid,ES), P Mahia Casado (Madrid,ES), J Higueras Nafria (Madrid,ES), J Goirigolzarri (Madrid,ES), R Bover Freire (Madrid,ES), I Vilacostai (Madrid,ES), C Macaya (Madrid,ES)

D Enriquez Vazquez1 , CN Perez Garcia1 , M Ferrandez Escarabajal1 , A Travieso Gonzalez1 , TS Luque Diaz1 , C Olmos Blanco1 , D Vivas Balcones1 , P Mahia Casado1 , J Higueras Nafria1 , J Goirigolzarri1 , R Bover Freire1 , I Vilacostai1 , C Macaya1 , 1Hospital Clinic San Carlos, Cardiovascular Institute - Madrid - Spain ,


In recent years, the study of heart failure (HF) with ejection fraction in the middle range (EFmr) has been enhanced as a group with differential characteristics.

 The aim of this study is to analyze the differences between patients with EFmr and preserved ejection fraction (EFp), as well as its long-term follow-up.

Prospective and consecutive patients with HF admission in the Cardiology Service between July 2016 and March 2017 were collected, collecting the data referring to them, to the management, and to the follow-up performed until April 2018.

Of the total of 341 patients with HF, 49 had EFmr and 153 patients had EFp. The baseline characteristics of these are shown in Table 1. No significant differences were found regarding the main trigger. The patient with HF EFmr presents in general a profile of greater cardiovascular risk. The clinical presentation regarding the physical examination showed no differences.

The patients with EFmr received in a higher percentage treatment with beta-blockers (73.5% vs 64.7%, NS), ACEi or ARA2 (65.3% vs 55.6%, p 0.299) as well as ARM. No differences were found regarding the diuretic treatment at discharge. There were no significant differences in the patient's referral to the HF Unit after discharge.

A median follow-up of 403 days was performed. No significant differences were found in terms of readmission due to HF or other causes. Regarding mortality, there were no differences (27.7% vs. 29.9%, p = 0.766), nor in their analysis due to causes.

HF EFmr presents a phenotype similar to that of EFp in terms of presentation, patient profile and clinical management. It is similar in terms of readmissions and mortality due to heart failure and other causes.


Midrange EF

Preserved EF

p value

Mean age




Sex female








Diabetes Mellitus




Mean EF




Atrial fibrillation








Table 1

Get your access to resources

Join now
  • 1ESC Professional Members – access all ESC Congress resources 
  • 2ESC Association Members (Ivory, Silver, Gold) – access your Association’s resources
  • 3Under 40 or in training - with a Combined Membership, access all resources
Join now

Our sponsors

ESC 365 is supported by Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly Alliance, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer Alliance, Novartis Pharma AG and Vifor Pharma in the form of educational grants. The sponsors were not involved in the development of this platform and had no influence on its content.

logo esc

Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease

Who we are