Table 1 Summary of population studies on the prevalence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (adapted from Wang et al2)
Study (reference)CountryParticipants (n)Mean age (years)Men (%)LVSD criteriaPrevalence of LVSD (%)Prevalence of LVSD without CHF†
EF >0.40, or equivalent
Strong Heart study4USA31845837EF ⩽0.5414.012.5
HyperGEN study6USA20865538EF ⩽0.5414.012.9
Davies et al7England39606150EF ⩽0.505.33.3
MONICA project (Augsburg)15Germany15665048EF ⩽0.482.71.1
Hedberg et al16Sweden4127550WMI ⩾1.76.83.2
Nielsen et al17Denmark1267055WMI ⩾1.5 or FS ⩽0.262.91.0
Rotterdam study18Netherlands22676645FS ⩽0.253.72.9
Helsinki Ageing study19Finland50127FS ⩽0.2510.88.6
EF ⩽0.40
Strong Heart study4USA31845837EF ⩽0.402.92.1
HyperGEN study6USA20865538EF ⩽0.404.03.4
Davies et al7England39606150EF ⩽0.401.80.9
MONICA project (Glasgow)8Scotland14675048EF ⩽0.357.75.9
MONICA project (Glasgow)8Scotland14675048EF ⩽0.302.91.4
Qualitatively “reduced” EF
Cardiovascular Health study20USA55327342Qualitative3.52.5
Morgan et al21England8177646Qualitative7.53.9
  • CHF, congestive heart failure; EF, ejection fraction; FS, fractional shortening; HyperGEN, Hypertension Genetic Epidemiology Network; LVSD, left ventricular systolic dysfunction; MONICA, Monitoring Trends and Determinants in Cardiovascular Disease; WMI, wall-motion index.