Article Text

Download PDFPDF

96 The prognostic role of mid-range ejection fraction following ST elevation myocardial infarction
  1. Mohammad Alkhalil1,
  2. Aileen Kearney1,
  3. Matthew Donnelly1,
  4. Daniel MacElhatton1,
  5. Jeni Jones2,
  6. Lana Dixon1
  1. 1Royal Victoria Hospital
  2. 2Craigavon Area Hospital


Introduction The newly-defined group of heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (mrEF) is increasingly established as a distinct entity among chronic heart failure patients. In the acute setting, nonetheless, there is lack of well-defined pathways to manage patients with mrEF following ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Whether the mrEF group has different demographic features and/or altered prognosis from other EF categories are yet to be determined. We sought to investigate the long-term cardiovascular outcomes of mrEF post STEMI and to identify if there were any clinical features that may help identify those who are at increased risk.

Methods Consecutive patients undergoing primary PCI from a large volume single centre were enrolled. Reduced EF (<40%), mrEF (40- 50%) and preserved EF (>50%) were defined using the European Society of Cardiology recommended cut-offs. Primary endpoint was defined as composite of death, re-admission with heart failure, sustained ventricular arrhythmia or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) over three years follow-up.

Results 552 patients were included in this study. Mean age was 63 ±13 years and 75% were male. The median EF was 50% (40- 55). 21% of patients were classified as reduced EF, 41% as mrEF, and 38% with preserved EF. There were significant differences across three subgroups (reduced EF, mrEF, and preserved EF respectively) in age (66 ±13, 62 ±13, 62 ±12, P= 0.017), troponin value [4606 (1589- 10000), 2819 (1059- 6347), 902 (329- 2869), (P<0.001)] and proportion of patients with normal renal function (69%, 82%, 88%, P<0.001) and anterior STEMI (70%, 45%, 20%, P<0.001).

There was a stepwise increase in the primary endpoint according to the EF category 6.2%, 18.5%, 34.8% P<0.001 (figure 1); hazard ratio (HR) for mrEF versus preserved EF 3.25 (95% CI 1.74 to 6.05), P<0.001, and HR for mrEF versus reduced EF 0.48 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.74, P= 0.001. The difference was derived from each of the primary components i.e. death (3.3%, 10.1%, 17.4%, P<0.001), re-admission with heart failure (2.9%, 6.2%, 13%, P= 0.002), and ventricular arrhythmia/ICD implantation (0%, 4.8%, 12.2%, P<0.001).

There were differential independent predictors of primary endpoint between mrEF and preserved EF (table 1&2). Normal kidney function was associated with better clinical outcomes in both EF categories.

Abstract 96 Table 1

Predictors of clinical outcomes in patients with mrEF

Abstract 96 Table 2

Predictors of clinical outcomes in patients with preserved EF

Conclusion Patients presenting with STEMI and mrEF carried an intermediate risk over long term follow up. Further studies are required to assess if their risk is modifiable but importantly the mrEF group should not be considered as low risk patients

Conflict of Interest None

  • Ejection fraction
  • clinical outcomes

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.