Impact of signs and symptoms on the prognosis of patients with HFmrEF

Liu, Zhican; Zhu, Yunlong; Zhang, Lingling; Wu, Mingxin; Huang, Haobo; Peng, Ke; Zhao, Wenjiao; Chen, Sihao; Peng, **n; Li, Na; Zhang, Hui; Zhou, Yuying; Chen, Yongliang; **ao, Sha; Yi, Liqing; Fan, Jie; Zeng, Jian**

doi:10.1186/s12872-023-03436-z

Impact of signs and symptoms on the prognosis of patients with HFmrEF

Research
Open access
Published: 24 August 2023

Volume 23, article number 420, (2023)
Cite this article

Download PDF

You have full access to this open access article

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Impact of signs and symptoms on the prognosis of patients with HFmrEF

Download PDF

Zhican Liu^1,2^na1,
Yunlong Zhu^1,2,3,
Lingling Zhang¹^na1,
Mingxin Wu^1,2^na1,
Haobo Huang¹,
Ke Peng⁴,
Wenjiao Zhao¹,
Sihao Chen^1,2,
Jian** Zeng^1,2

890 Accesses
Explore all metrics

Abstract

Background

Worsening of heart failure (HF) symptoms is the leading cause of medical contact and hospitalization of patients with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). The prognostic value of signs and symptoms for patients with HFmrEF is currently unclear. This study investigated the prognostic impact of signs and symptoms in HFmrEF patients.

Methods

A Cox proportional risk regression model analyzed the relationship between the number of signs/symptoms and outcomes in 1691 hospitalized HFmrEF patients. Ten significant signs and symptoms were included. Patients were divided into three groups (A: ≤2, B: 3–5, C: ≥6 signs/symptoms). Stratified analysis on male and female patients was performed. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death and heart failure readmission (CV events) post-discharge.

Results

After a median follow-up of 33 months, all-cause mortality occurred in 457 patients and CV events occurred in 977 patients. Incidence of all-cause mortality was 20.7%, 32.3%* and 49.4%*† in group A, B and C of male patients, (*P < 0.05 vs. A, †P < 0.05 vs. B) and 18.8%, 33.6% and 55.8%* in group A, B and C of female patients. Incidence of CV events was 64.8%, 70.1%* and 87.5%* in group A, B and C of male patients, 61.9%, 75.3%, and 86.1%* in group A, B and C of female patients. Multivariate Cox regression showed older age, renal insufficiency, higher number of signs and symptoms (≥ 3, hazard ratio [HR] 1.317, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.070–1.621, P = 0.009; ≥6, HR 1.982, 95% CI 1.402–2.801, P < 0.001), myocardial infarction, stroke, faster heart rate on admission, and diabetes were independently associated with all-cause mortality(all P < 0.05). Similarly, higher number of signs and symptoms (≥ 3, HR 1.271, 95% CI 1.119–1.443, P < 0.001; ≥6, HR 1.955, 95% CI 1.524–2.508, P < 0.001), older age, renal insufficiency, atrial fibrillation, and diabetes were independently associated with cardiovascular events (all P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Higher number of symptoms and signs is associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality and CV events in HFmrEF patients. Our results highlight the prognostic importance of careful inquiry on HF symptoms and related physical examination in HFmrEF patients.

View this article's peer review reports

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment

Article Open access 11 April 2024

Biomarkers for the diagnosis and management of heart failure

Article Open access 14 April 2021

Inflammation in heart failure: pathophysiology and therapeutic strategies

Article Open access 28 March 2024

Introduction

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is characterized by decline in exercise capacity and dyspnea, serves as a common etiology of repeated hospitalizations [1]. It is estimated that around 26 million people worldwide suffer from chronic heart failure [2]. In China, the prevalence rate of age-standardized heart failure (HF) is 1.10%, and the incidence rate is 275 cases per 100,000 person-years [3]. The China-HF study showed that the mortality rate was 4.1% in hospitalized HF patients [4]. Aging population and advances in the treatment of HF may further increase the number of patients with HF, CHF is also associated with huge financial burden on family and the healthcare system [2].Heart failure is a clinical syndrome, the signs and symptoms of which are primarily due to functional or structural heart disease. These functional or structural diseases can include, but are not limited to, cardiomyopathies, coronary artery disease, hypertension, or valvular heart disease [5].

Nowadays, physicians rely more and more on imaging and laboratory tests results to guide the diagnosis and treatment of HF [6], rational use of these modalities are essential, but adds unavoidably to the financial burden on the healthcare system. Independent of imaging and laboratory tests, previous studies have shown that signs and symptoms, which could be obtained by careful and thorough inquiry and physical examination, can also guide the diagnosis and treatment of patients with HF in an economic way [6, 7]. Besides, information on signs and symptoms is valuable for decision making regarding the need of hospitalization or not [8]. In a post-hoc analysis of the PARAGON-HF trial, more HF signs and symptoms were associated with higher risk of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death in HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) [9]. A similar risk relationship has been shown in studies examining various combinations of signs and symptoms in patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) [10,11,12]. The prognostic value of signs and symptoms in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is currently unclear. In this study, we observed the prognostic impact of signs and symptoms in HFmrEF patients.

Methods

Study design and population

A total of 1691 patients with HFmrEF admitted to our hospital from 1 to 2015 to 31 August 2020 were included. All patients included in this study were diagnosed with heart failure according to standard AHA and ESC guidelines [5, 13]. In our study [Full size image

Table 3 Association Between Burden of Signs and Symptoms and Clinical Outcomes

Full size table

Clinical outcomes

After a median follow-up of 33 months (20–50 months), all-cause deaths occurred in 457 patients, and CV events occurred in 977 patients.

Comparison on incidence of all-cause mortality and CV events between groups is presented in Table 2. All-cause mortality in Group A was 20.69%, compared to 32.33% in Group B and 49.45% in Group C, revealing significant differences among the three groups (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). This discrepancy persisted in the male patient population; however, a statistically significant difference was only observed among female patients between Group C, and Group A. Cardiovascular events were 62.83% in Group A, 73.71% in Group B, and 86.81% in Group C, with significant differences noted among the three groups (P < 0.05 for all comparisons). Group B and Group C exhibited significant differences in male patients compared to Group A, while no notable difference was observed between Group B and Group C. In female patients, a statistically significant difference was only observed between Group C and Group A.

Before confounder adjustment, analysis showed that the risk of all-cause mortality increased with each increase on the number of symptoms and signs (HR 1.18; 95% CI 1.12–1.24; P < 0.0001; male HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.16–1.33, P < 0.0001; female HR 1.10; 95% CI 1.01–1.19; P = 0.0262) (Table 3, model IA). Similarly, each increase on the number of symptoms and signs was also associated with an increased risk of CV events (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.10–1.17; P < 0.0001) (male HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.10–1.20, P < 0.0001; female HR 1.11; 95% CI 1.05–1.17; P = 0.0001) (Table 3, model IIA). When symptoms and signs were analyzed as categorical variables, in male patients, risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in group B (HR 1.96; 95% CI 1.53–2.50; P < 0.0001) and group C (HR 4.05; 95% CI 2.61–6.30; P < 0.0001) than in group A (Fig. 3A; Table 3, model IB). In female patients, risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in group C than in group A (HR 1.94; 95% CI 1.19–3.15; P = 0.0075), which was similar between group B and group A (HR 1.27; 95% CI 0.92–1.75; P = 0.1444) (Fig. 3B; Table 3, model IB). In male patients, risk of CV events was significantly higher in group B (HR 1.48; 95% CI 1.28–1.72; P < 0.0001) and group C (HR 2.19; 95% CI 1.56–3.07; P < 0.0001) than in group A (Fig. 3C; Table 3, model IIB). In female patients, risk of CV events was significantly higher in group C than in group A (HR 2.20; 95% CI 1.57–3.07; P < 0.0001), which was similar between group B and group A (HR 1.20; 95% CI 0.98–1.47; P = 0.0821) (Fig. 3D; Table 3, model IIB).

After adjusting for age (model I), each increase in the number of symptoms and signs was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.14; 95% CI 1.08–1.20; P < 0.0001) and CV events (HR 1.12; 95% CI 1.08–1.16; P < 0.0001) in both sexes. When symptoms and signs were treated as categorical variables, compared to group A, male patients in groups B (HR 1.58; 95% CI 1.23–2.02; P = 0.0003) and C (HR 3.13; 95% CI 2.01–4.89; P < 0.0001) faced an increased risk of all-cause mortality. In female patients, the risk of all-cause mortality was higher in group C than in group A (HR 1.90; 95% CI 1.17–3.09; P = 0.0097), but there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between group B and group A (HR 1.24; 95% CI 0.90–1.71; P = 0.1891). Compared to group A, male patients in groups B (HR 1.41; 95% CI 1.21–1.63; P < 0.0001) and C (HR 2.05; 95% CI 1.46–2.88; P < 0.0001) were associated with an increased risk of CV events. In female patients, the risk of CV events was higher in group C than in group A (HR 2.21; 95% CI 1.58–3.09; P < 0.0001), but there was no significant difference in CV events between group B and group A (HR 1.20; 95% CI 0.98–1.47; P = 0.0810) (Table 3).

Table 4 Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Model Analysis for Risk of Outcomes

Full size table

After adjusting for all covariates (model II), the risk of all-cause mortality increased with the increasing number of symptoms and signs in male patients (HR 1.10; 95% CI 1.02–1.19; P = 0.0094), while the risk increase was not significant in female patients (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.96–1.15; P = 0.2692) (Fig. 4A, B; Table 3). Each increase on number of symptoms and signs was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) events (HR 1.10; 95% CI 1.06–1.14; P < 0.0001) in both male patients (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06–1.17, P < 0.0001) and female patients (HR 1.09; 95% CI 1.03–1.16; P = 0.0032) (Fig. 4C, D; Table 3). When symptoms and signs were treated as categorical variables, compared with group A, the increase of symptoms and signs was still associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality in group B (HR 1.36; 95% CI 1.05–1.77; P = 0.0195) and in group C (HR 2.41; 95% CI 1.51–3.85; P = 0.0002) in male patients (Table 3, Model IB). In female patients, the differences in all-cause mortality between group A and group B (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.75–1.51; P = 0.7086) and between group A and group C (HR 1.36; 95% CI 0.81–2.30; P = 0.2489) were not significant (Table 3). Compared with group A, male patients in group B (HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.14–1.56; P = 0.0003) and group C (HR 1.89; 95% CI 1.33–2.68; P = 0.0004) faced increased risk of CV events (Table 3). In female patients, the risk of CV events was higher in group C than that in group A (HR 1.96; 95% CI 1.37–2.82; P = 0.0003), but there was no significant difference between group B and group A (HR 1.13; 95% CI 0.90–1.41; P = 0.2824) (Table 3).

Table 5 Association Between Individual Signs and Symptoms and Clinical Outcomes

Full size table

Independent risk factors of outcomes

Multivariate Cox regression models were used to identify risk factors independently associated with outcome events (Table 4). Parameters with a significance level of P < 0.05 from univariate Cox regression analysis were included in the multivariate model. Results showed that following factors were independently associated with all-cause death, including older age, renal insufficiency, higher number of signs and symptoms (≥ 3, hazard ratio [HR] 1.317, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.070–1.621, P = 0.009; ≥6, HR 1.982, 95% CI 1.402–2.801, P < 0.001), myocardial infarction, stroke, faster heart rate on admission, and diabetes (all P < 0.05). Similarly, higher number of signs and symptoms (≥ 3, HR 1.271, 95% CI 1.119–1.443, P < 0.001; ≥6, HR 1.955, 95% CI 1.524–2.508, P < 0.001), older age, renal insufficiency, atrial fibrillation, and diabetes were independently associated with cardiovascular events (all P < 0.05).

In patients with ≥ 3 symptoms or signs, the following characteristics were associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality: male sex, age ≥ 75 years, systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg, heart rate < 100 beats/min, NYHA III + IV, presence of coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, hypertension, stroke, even in the absence of hyperlipidemia, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and renal insufficiency (Fig. 5).

Impact of individual signs and symptoms on outcome events

We investigated the relationship between individual signs and symptoms and clinical outcomes in our patients. Results showed that chest pain, dyspnea, cough, hepatojugular reflux sign, and pleural effusion were independently associated with all-cause mortality in male patients. Dyspnea, cough, rales, and edema were independently associated with cardiovascular events (CV events) in all patients regardless of sex. Chest pain, ascites, and pleural effusion were independently associated with CV events in male patients, while jugular venous distension was independently associated with CV events in female patient (all P < 0.05) (Table 5).

Additionally, we observed the impact of initial LVEF on the outcome of our patients. The patients were divided into constant mrEF (mEF) group (n = 1168), patients from rEF to mrEF (rEF) group (n = 125) and from pEF to mrEF (pEF) group (n = 398). As shown in Table S2, compared to constant mrEF group, risk for all-cause death and cardiovascular events was significantly higher in rEF and pEF groups as compared to mrEF group. Table S3 illustrates the association between symptom burden and clinical outcomes in these groups. We used both continuous and categorical analysis to establish the hazard ratio of symptoms. The results showed a trend of increasing hazard ratio with an increasing number of symptoms for both all-cause death and cardiovascular events across all groups.

Discussion

The main finding of present study are as follows: In HFmrEF patients, the risk of all-cause mortality and CV events increased with increasing symptoms and signs (Fig. 6 central illustration).

Our results thus indicate the prognostic importance of careful inquiry on HF symptoms and related physical examination in HFmrEF patients. To our best knowledge, this is the first clinical report highlighting the importance of careful inquiring of HF symptoms and signs on risk stratification in HFmrEF patients.

Our finding in HFmrEF cohort is similar as that of HFpEF patients. A total of 4725 patients with HFpEF were included in the post-hoc analysis of PARAGONHF [9], it was shown that high HF sign and symptom burden was associated with an increased risk of heart failure admission and cardiovascular death [9]. Our results added the prognostic value of symptoms and signs on all-cause death in HFmrEF patients. Thus, a detailed history and physical examination might provide helpful information for risk stratification on cardiovascular outcome in both HFpEF and HFmrEF patients. Patients with HFpEF have the same typical heart failure symptoms as those with HFrEF [16]. Previous studies examining various combinations of signs and symptoms in inpatients with HFrEF showed a similarly increased cardiovascular risk as reported in the post-hoc analysis of PARAGONHF [10,11,12]. Taken together, careful assessment of signs and inquiry of HF symptoms are valuable for the risk stratification of HF patients with various EF categories. This economical tool should be applied more frequently in daily clinical practice to treat the patients in a more cost-effective fashion.

According to current HF guideline, treatment should focus on preventing progressive adverse cardiac remodeling and reducing mortality and hospitalization rates [5, 17]. Even with the modern HF treatment options, the patient’s symptom burden still increases over time [18] and serves as an important index related to worsening quality of life [17]. It is to note that some HF patients may also be less aware of their real severity on symptoms [19] and even the milder symptoms of CHF can cause problems in patients’ lives [20]. Thus, physicians should pay more attention to obtain real information on symptoms in HF patients. The central task of hospitalization of CHF patients is symptom control [21], and in fact, prioritizing symptom management in the clinic can reduce re-hospitalization and the cost of treatment [1]. Thus, symptom control should be highlighted in hospitalized HF patients with various EF categories.

Study limitations

This study has several limitations. First, an inherent limitation of this retrospective study design is the inability to comprehensively capture and verify all potentially significant signs and symptoms of heart failure such as orthopnea, bendopnea, and Paroxysmal Nocturnal Dyspnea (PND). These symptoms were not systematically documented in the medical records used for this study. As a result, their absence may potentially impact the robustness of our findings. Future prospective studies are needed to incorporate these important symptoms for a more comprehensive assessment of heart failure. Second, our study recruited patients from a single heart center in China and, future studies including patients from elsewhere are needed to demonstrate the consistency of the findings. Third, because the limited use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors and sodium-dependent glucose transporters, two inhibitors, which has only recently been introduced in our hospital, might affect the outcome of patients in our cohort. Fourth, present study did not explore the prognostic value of signs and symptoms in HFmrEF patients on patients with different severity of biomarkers derived from imaging and laboratory tests, and future studies are needed to explore patients with similar signs and symptoms but varied severity of biomarkers derived from imaging and laboratory tests.

Clinical implication

The study highlights the value of physical examination skills in HF. A better understanding of the prognostic impact of signs and symptoms in patients with HFmrEF may help develop strategies to improve the outcome of HFmrEF patients, future studies are needed to observe if more intensive HF care and management might improve the outcome of HFmrEF patients with high symtoms and signs burden at admission. Clinicians should not only rely on imaging and laboratory tests, but also aware the prognostic importance of refining signs and symptoms. A detailed physical examination is critical in determining the patient’s condition when imaging and laboratory test results are unavailable to the first consulting physician.

Conclusions

Despite the increasing availability of imaging and laboratory tests for diagnosing heart failure, a detailed physical examination remains highly significant in clinical practice. In HFmrEF patients, the risk of all-cause mortality increased with increasing symptoms and signs. Higher number of symptoms and signs is also associated with increased risk of CV events in HFmrEF patients. Future prospective studies are warranted to know if intensive HF management strategy focusing on HF symptoms and signs control could improve the outcome of HFmrEF patients with high symptoms and signs burden.

Data Availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due the database owner is reluctant to make them public but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

Patel H, Shafazand M, Schaufelberger M, Ekman I. Reasons for seeking acute care in chronic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2007;9(6–7):702–8.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Ponikowski P, Anker SD, AlHabib KF, Cowie MR, Force TL, Hu S, Jaarsma T, Krum H, Rastogi V, Rohde LE, et al. Heart failure: preventing disease and death worldwide. ESC Heart Failure. 2014;1(1):4–25.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Wang H, Chai K, Du M, Wang S, Cai J, Li Y, Zeng P, Zhu W, Zhan S, Yang J. Prevalence and incidence of heart failure among urban patients in China: A National Population-Based analysis. Circulation: Heart Failure 2021, 14(10).
Zhang YZJBJ. Contemporary epidemiology, management, and outcomes of patients hospitalized for heart failure in China: results from the China heart failure (China-HF) registry. J Card Fail. 2017;23(12):868–75.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, Allen LA, Byun JJ, Colvin MM, Deswal A, Drazner MH, Dunlay SM, Evers LR, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the management of heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;79(17):e263–e421.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Caldentey G, Khairy P, Roy D, Leduc H, Talajic M, Racine N, White M, O’Meara E, Guertin M, Rouleau JL, et al. Prognostic value of the physical examination in patients with heart failure and Atrial Fibrillation. JACC: Heart Failure. 2014;2(1):15–23.
PubMed Google Scholar
Thibodeau JT, Drazner MH. The role of the clinical examination in patients with heart failure. JACC Heart failure. 2018;6(7):543–51.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Leier CV, Chatterjee K. The physical examination in heart failure—part II. Congestive heart failure (Greenwich Conn). 2007;13(2):99–103.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Jering K, Claggett B, Redfield MM, Shah SJ, Anand IS, Martinez F, Sabarwal SV, Seferović PM, Kerr Saraiva JF, Katova T, et al. Burden of heart failure signs and symptoms, prognosis, and response to Therapy. JACC: Heart Failure. 2021;9(5):386–97.
PubMed Google Scholar
Lucas C, Johnson W, Hamilton MA, Fonarow GC, Woo MA, Flavell CM, Creaser JA, Stevenson LW. Freedom from congestion predicts good survival despite previous class IV symptoms of heart failure. Am Heart J. 2000;140(6):840–7.
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Drazner MH, Rame JE, Stevenson LW, Dries DL. Prognostic importance of elevated jugular venous pressure and a third heart sound in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(8):574–81.
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Selvaraj S, Claggett B, Pozzi A, McMurray JJV, Jhund PS, Packer M, Desai AS, Lewis EF, Vaduganathan M, Lefkowitz MP, et al. Prognostic implications of congestion on physical examination among contemporary patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Circulation. 2019;140(17):1369–79.
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, Gardner RS, Baumbach A, Böhm M, Burri H, Butler J, Čelutkienė J, Chioncel O, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(36):3599–726.
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Zhu Y, Peng X, Wu M, Huang H, Li N, Chen Y, **ao S, Zhang H, Zhou Y, Chen S, et al. Risk factors of short-term, intermediate‐term, and long‐term cardiac events in patients hospitalized for HFmrEF. ESC Heart Failure. 2022;9(5):3124–38.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Boer AR, Vaartjes I, Gohar A, Valk MJM, Brugts JJ, Boonman De Winter LJM, Riet EE, Mourik Y, Brunner La Rocca HP, Linssen GCM, et al. Heart failure with preserved, mid-range, and reduced ejection fraction across health care settings: an observational study. ESC Heart Failure. 2022;9(1):363–72.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Lewis EF, Lamas GA, O’Meara E, Granger CB, Dunlap ME, McKelvie RS, Probstfield JL, Young JB, Michelson EL, Halling K, et al. Characterization of health-related quality of life in heart failure patients with preserved versus low ejection fraction in CHARM. Eur J Heart Fail. 2007;9(1):83–91.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Jaarsma T. End-of-life issues in cardiac patients and their families. Eur J Cardiovasc Nur. 2002;1(4):223–5.
Article CAS Google Scholar
Walke LM, Byers AL, Tinetti ME, Dubin JA, McCorkle R, Fried TR. Range and severity of symptoms over time among older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(22):2503–8.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Friedman MM. Older adults’ symptoms and their duration before hospitalization for heart failure. Heart Lung. 1997;26(3):169–76.
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Falk K, Patel H, Swedberg K, Ekman I. Fatigue in patients with chronic heart failure — a Burden Associated with emotional and Symptom Distress. Eur J Cardiovasc Nur. 2009;8(2):91–6.
Article Google Scholar
Masoudi FA, Havranek EP, Krumholz HM. The burden of chronic congestive heart failure in older persons: magnitude and implications for policy and research. Heart Fail Rev. 2002;7(1):9–16.
Article PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the assistance provided by the Department of Scientific Research of ** Zeng

Graduate Collaborative Training Base of ** Zeng

Department of Cardiology, The Second **angya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China

Yunlong Zhu

Department of Scientific Research, **angtan Central Hospital, **angtan, 411100, China

Ke Peng

Authors

Zhican Liu
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Yunlong Zhu
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Lingling Zhang
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Mingxin Wu
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Haobo Huang
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Ke Peng
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Wenjiao Zhao
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Sihao Chen
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
**n Peng
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Na Li
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Hui Zhang
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Yuying Zhou
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Yongliang Chen
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Sha **ao
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Liqing Yi
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Jie Fan
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Jian** Zeng
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Zhican Liu, Lingling Zhang, Mingxin Wu: established the hypothesis, performed the statistical analysis, wrote the manuscript. Haobo Huang, Ke Peng, Wenjiao Zhao and Jie Fan: interpreted statistical analysis and conducted multivariate analysis. Sihao Chen, ** Zeng: initiated the study hypothesis, edited the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yunlong Zhu or Jian** Zeng.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of **angtan Central Hospital (**angtan, China, No.20211036) and conformed to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.The need for informed consent was waived by the ethics committee Review Board of **angtan Central Hospital, because of the retrospective nature of the study.

Patient consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

12872_2023_3436_MOESM1_ESM.docx

Additional File 1: Baseline features of Serology and Echocardiography are stratified by the burden of signs and symptoms and then by gender.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liu, Z., Zhu, Y., Zhang, L. et al. Impact of signs and symptoms on the prognosis of patients with HFmrEF. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 23, 420 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-023-03436-z

Download citation

Received: 17 May 2023
Accepted: 08 August 2023
Published: 24 August 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-023-03436-z

Impact of signs and symptoms on the prognosis of patients with HFmrEF