RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Outcomes of de novo and acute decompensated heart failure patients according to ejection fraction JF Heart JO Heart FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Cardiovascular Society SP 525 OP 532 DO 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311813 VO 104 IS 6 A1 Ki Hong Choi A1 Ga Yeon Lee A1 Jin-Oh Choi A1 Eun-Seok Jeon A1 Hae-Young Lee A1 Hyun-Jai Cho A1 Sang Eun Lee A1 Min-Seok Kim A1 Jae-Joong Kim A1 Kyung-Kuk Hwang A1 Shung Chull Chae A1 Sang Hong Baek A1 Seok-Min Kang A1 Dong-Ju Choi A1 Byung-Su Yoo A1 Kye Hun Kim A1 Hyun-Young Park A1 Myeong-Chan Cho A1 Byung-Hee Oh YR 2018 UL http://heart.bmj.com/content/104/6/525.abstract AB Objective There are conflicting results among previous studies regarding the prognosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) compared with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with de novo acute heart failure (AHF) or acute decompensated HF (ADHF) according to HFpEF (EF≥50%), or HFrEF (EF<40%) and to define the prognosis of patients with HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF, 40≤EF<50%).Methods Between March 2011 and February 2014, 5625 consecutive patients with AHF were recruited from 10 university hospitals. A total of 5414 (96.2%) patients with EF data were enrolled, which consisted of 2867 (53.0%) patients with de novo and 2547 (47.0%) with ADHF. Each of the enrolled group was stratified by EF.Results In de novo, all-cause death rates were not significantly different between HFpEF and HFrEF (HFpEF vs HFrEF, 206/744 (27.7%) vs 438/1631 (26.9%), HRadj 1.15, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.38, p=0.14). However, among patients with ADHF, HFrEF had a significantly higher mortality rate compared with HFpEF (HFpEF vs HFrEF, 245/613 (40.0%) vs 694/1551 (44.7%), HRadj 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.47, p=0.007). Also, in ADHF, HFmrEF was associated with a significantly lower mortality rate within 1 year compared with HFrEF (HFmrEF vs HFrEF, 88/383 (23.0%) vs 430/1551 (27.7%), HRadj 1.31, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.65, p=0.03), but a significantly higher mortality rate after 1 year compared with HFpEF (HFmrEF vs HFpEF, 83/295 (28.1%) vs 101/469 (21.5%), HRadj 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96, p=0.02).Conclusions HFpEF may indicate a better prognosis compared with HFrEF in ADHF, but not in de novo AHF. For patients with ADHF, the prognosis associated with HFmrEF was similar to that of HFpEF within the first year following hospitalisation and similar to HFrEF 1  year after hospitalisation.