ライフサイエンスコーパス: HFrEF

1 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

2 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

3 heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

4 heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

5 heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

6 mrEF and risk ratio, 0.90 [0.88-0.92] versus HFrEF).

7 EF and hazard ratio, 0.84 [0.80-0.90] versus HFrEF).

8 ients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

9 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

10 F (HFpEF) and incident HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF).

11 ) from those with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

12 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

13 cases are HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

14 dict the occurrence of MACE in patients with HFrEF.

15 a role in the care of certain patients with HFrEF.

16 e hospitalization in high-risk patients with HFrEF.

17 therapies targeted specifically at HFpEF or HFrEF.

18 se and cardiovascular death in patients with HFrEF.

19 ilator stress perfusion CMR in patients with HFrEF.

20 s or ARBs and beta blockers in patients with HFrEF.

21 posite outcome is apparent in both HFpEF and HFrEF.

22 BP <130 mm Hg with outcomes in patients with HFrEF.

23 guideline-directed medication titration for HFrEF.

24 endent cohort of 3539 men and 961 women with HFrEF.

25 cts of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with HFrEF.

26 optimal SBP reduction goals in patients with HFrEF.

27 mains a promising, yet unproven treatment in HFrEF.

28 in HFrEF (0.54+/-0.06); P=0.002 HFpEF versus HFrEF.

29 lying the effects of sacubitril-valsartan in HFrEF.

30 therapy will benefit patients with advanced HFrEF.

31 cardiovascular hospitalization in HFpEF and HFrEF.

32 ith a greater increase in risk of HFpEF than HFrEF.

33 3,285 (8.2%) had HFbEF, and 18,398 (46%) had HFrEF.

34 caemic control in patients with diabetes and HFrEF.

35 f oral iron supplementation in patients with HFrEF.

36 iated with lower risk of HFpEF compared with HFrEF.

37 lycaemic drugs in patients with diabetes and HFrEF.

38 sus on how best to treat AF with concomitant HFrEF.

39 ate the likelihood of death in patients with HFrEF.

40 0 (62.3%) patients were classified as having HFrEF.

41 6) with HFpEF, and 42.9% (1481 of 3456) with HFrEF.

42 re used to define risk factors for HFpEF and HFrEF.

43 dity were associated with HFpEF but not with HFrEF.

44 rEF, patients with HFpEF, and patients with HFrEF.

45 ckade, has led to groundbreaking findings in HFrEF.

46 rvival rate of 25% after hospitalization for HFrEF.

47 An ejection fraction <50% was considered HFrEF.

48 Patients received standard treatment for HFrEF.

49 s and clinical phenotypes of PH in HFpEF and HFrEF.

50 y high PASP predicted incident HFpEF but not HFrEF.

51 central hemodynamics in patients with HF and HFrEF.

52 ation noted among patients with HFpEF versus HFrEF.

53 to patients with HFpEF than to patients with HFrEF.

54 onventional therapy in patients with chronic HFrEF.

55 art failure hospitalization and mortality in HFrEF.

56 lectron transport, pathways downregulated in HFrEF.

57 y profile of liraglutide among patients with HFrEF.

58 orphological changes were more pronounced in HFrEF (0.54+/-0.06); P=0.002 HFpEF versus HFrEF.

59 e of either (HFpEF: 0.9 [0.4-2.0, p = 0.85], HFrEF: 0.7 [0.3-1.4, p = 0.30],).

60 EF (HFpEF: 2.4 [1.4-4.0, p = 0.001]) but not HFrEF (1.4 [0.8-2.5, p = 0.31]).

61 icted HFrEF (HFpEF: 2.0 [1.0-4.0, p = 0.05], HFrEF: 2.8 [1.4-5.5, p = 0.003]), whereas abnormal PVR w

62 However, BNIP3 monomer was increased in HFrEF (4.32+/-1.43) compared with normal (0.99+/-0.06) a

63 on fraction data (53% female, 68% white, 53% HFrEF, 47% HFpEF).

64 patients [HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) 48.1%; HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF

65 was increased in HFpEF (3.99+/-2.44) and in HFrEF (5.19+/-1.70) relative to normal; P=0.004 and P<0.

66 IHD), 21% had HFmrEF (61% IHD), and 55% had HFrEF (60% IHD).

67 Of 1053 patients with HFrEF (65+/-11 years, median [interquartile range] left

68 , all 3 groups had similar 5-year mortality (HFrEF 75.3% vs. HFpEF 75.7%; hazard ratio: 0.99 [95% con

69 In high-risk patients with HFrEF, a strategy of NT-proBNP-guided therapy was not mo

70 ntanyl, compared with placebo, patients with HFrEF achieved a higher peak workload, VO2 peak, cardiac

71 2018 with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; all HFrEF with ADHF).

72 A total of 8 studies (6 HFREF and 2 HFPEF, including 28 961 patients) were inclu

73 not associated with WRF among patients with HFrEF and a recent hospitalization for heart failure.

74 limit changes to LV function in people with HFrEF and cardiac implantable electronic devices.

75 ipal component analysis separated HFpEF from HFrEF and donor controls with minimal overlap, and this

76 readmission rates were higher in those with HFrEF and HFbEF compared with those with HFpEF.

77 r HIV infection increases the risk of future HFrEF and HFpEF and to assess if this risk varies by soc

78 on, and identification of the mechanisms for HFrEF and HFpEF in the HIV-infected population.

79 ntrations, mitochondrial function, and EI in HFrEF and HFpEF patients and in healthy controls.

80 HFrEF and HFpEF patients with EI and increased fatigabil

81 entrations and ATP flux rates were normal in HFrEF and HFpEF patients.

82 tudied phenotypically verified rat models of HFrEF and HFpEF to compare excitation-contraction (EC) c

83 r preserved ejection fraction (respectively, HFrEF and HFpEF) is the leading cause of death in develo

84 with reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF and HFpEF, respectively) are not known.

85 In both HFrEF and HFpEF, there is evidence that elevated inflamm

86 In both HFrEF and HFpEF, total HDL-P and small HDL-P were invers

87 inhibitors induce renal dysfunction in both HFREF and HFPEF.

88 mm3 was associated with an increased risk of HFrEF and HFpEF.

89 up, compared with the placebo group, in both HFREF and HFPEF.

90 comes in all randomly assigned patients with HFrEF and in relevant subgroups from DAPA-HF and EMPEROR

91 oves peak exercise capacity in patients with HFrEF and iron deficiency.

92 of IHD events was similar for HFmrEF versus HFrEF and lower in HFpEF (hazard ratio, 0.89 [0.84-0.95]

93 ith baseline IHD were similar for HFmrEF and HFrEF and lower in HFpEF (risk ratio, 0.91 [0.89-0.93] v

94 rom a control cohort of 15 346 patients with HFrEF and moderate CKD (estimated glomerular filtration

95 cubitril/valsartan-vericiguat combination in HFrEF and of vericiguat in HFpEF.

96 liflozin reduced LV volumes in patients with HFrEF and type 2 diabetes or prediabetes.

97 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and a recent hospitalization for heart failure to

98 ents with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and advanced CKD.

99 ents with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) t

100 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and hypertension be maintained below 130 mm Hg.

101 reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and is an independent predictor of reduced functi

102 pants with 3,180 HF events (1,252 HFpEF, 914 HFrEF, and 1,014 unclassified HF).

103 pEF, 15.5% were borderline HFpEF, 37.1% were HFrEF, and 12.8% were HF of unknown type).

104 /mL was associated with an increased risk of HFrEF, and time-updated CD4 cell count less than 200 cel

105 may help explain why therapies that work in HFrEF are ineffective in HFpEF.

106 Major differences between HFpEF and HFrEF are the underlying causes, associated comorbiditie

107 effects on cardiac structure and function in HFrEF are uncertain.

108 FpEF) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are not well established.

109 cantly over time for patients with HFpEF and HFrEF, as well (P for interaction with time=0.002 and 0.

110 The ANTHEM-HFrEF (Autonomic Regulation Therapy to Enhance Myocardia

111 rtic valve replacement (HFpEF(AVR), n=5; and HFrEF(AVR), n=4), coronary artery bypass grafting (HFpEF

112 art failure (HF) management in patients with HFrEF based on their ability to tolerate GDMT.

113 Rates of GDMT for HFrEF before primary prevention ICD implantation were lo

114 Among patients with HFrEF, beta-blocker use was associated with lower risk o

115 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) beyond conventional therapy consisting of angiote

116 es was higher for patients with HFpEF versus HFrEF, both for women (5.53 versus 4.94; P<0.0001) and m

117 failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but the mechanism by which they improve outcomes

118 lockers remain essential in the treatment of HFrEF, but limited evidence supports their use in HFmEF

119 B and beta blocker) in patients with chronic HFrEF by making indirect comparisons of three pivotal tr

120 rtery bypass grafting (HFpEF(CABG), n=5; and HFrEF(CABG), n=5), or left ventricular assist device imp

121 The increased risk of HFrEF can manifest decades earlier than would be expecte

122 vestigation and may reveal opportunities for HFrEF care optimization.

123 ent HF hospitalization, and 2849 died in the HFrEF cohort, of which 2016 died due to cardiovascular c

124 ospital mortality and 30-day readmission for HFrEF compared to HFpEF patients were 1.01 [95% confiden

125 creased risk of HFpEF, borderline HFpEF, and HFrEF compared with uninfected individuals.

126 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme

127 CTION trial that included 1669 patients with HFrEF, conducted between April 2003 and February 2007.

128 een 2008 and 2018, consecutive patients with HFrEF defined by left ventricular ejection fraction <40%

129 sified as HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (defined as current LVEF </=40%), HF with preserv

130 the real-world setting, 1 in 6 patients with HFrEF develop worsening HF within 18 months of HF diagno

131 ohorts, 982 developed incident HFpEF and 909 HFrEF during a median follow-up of 12 years.

132 VO2 , QL and O(2) delivery were greater for HFrEF during peak exercise (all, P < 0.01), but not cont

133 Of the 11,900 hospitalized patients with HFrEF (EF <=45%) in the Medicare-linked OPTIMIZE-HF (Org

134 F (EF>/=50%), borderline HFpEF (EF 40%-49%), HFrEF (EF<40%), and HF of unknown type (EF missing).

135 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (EF </=40%).

136 failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; EF <40%) is well established, but its pathogenic

137 tudy planned to randomize 1100 patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction </=40%), elevated natriuretic p

138 ll HF, HFpEF (ejection fraction >/=45%), and HFrEF (ejection fraction <45%) were assessed by using mu

139 with HF with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fractions.

140 Among patients with stable HFrEF, empagliflozin for 12 weeks reduced PCWP compared

141 gle-group, open-label study of patients with HFrEF enrolled in 78 outpatient sites in the United Stat

142 INTERPRETATION: Patients with diabetes and HFrEF enrolled in PARADIGM-HF who received sacubitril/va

143 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), even though there are known sex differences in p

144 ure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) exhibit severe limitations in exercise capacity (

145 Cardiomyocytes from rats with HFrEF exhibited impaired EC coupling, including decrease

146 ta for the treatment of AF in the setting of HFrEF, focuses on areas where more investigation is nece

147 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), following acute coronary syndrome and in stable

148 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) frequently coexist, and each complicates the cour

149 Among 1308 men and 402 women with HFrEF from BIOSTAT-CHF, women were older (74 [12] years

150 ental differences in EC coupling distinguish HFrEF from HFpEF.

151 rge mortality, particularly in patients with HFrEF from low-income regions with high income inequalit

152 , randomized trial enrolled 70 patients with HFrEF from March 6, 2018, to September 10, 2019.

153 Data on patients with incident HFrEF from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry PIN

154 The HFrEF group uniquely showed increase in DRP-1 expression

155 patients with acute decompensated HFpEF and HFrEF has increased over time, as has its associated mor

156 The management of HFrEF has seen significant scientific breakthrough in re

157 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have medical therapy titrated to target doses der

158 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; heart failure with reduced left ventricular eject

159 ents with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with a midrange LVEF (HFmrEF), and HF with pr

160 ated with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), or

161 In 456 patients with HFrEF, HF hospitalization rates were 28% lower in the tr

162 We found that patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF had unique variations in circul

163 Abnormal PAC predicted HFrEF (HFpEF: 2.0 [1.0-4.0, p = 0.05], HFrEF: 2.8 [1.4-5

164 cal themes that were unique to patients with HFrEF, HFpEF, or HFmrEF.

165 ld be routinely considered for patients with HFrEF hospitalized for ADHF.

166 2593 down) changed in the same direction in HFrEF; however, 5745 genes were uniquely altered between

167 comorbidity, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.14-1.25] versus HFrEF (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.05-1.14]; P for interaction b

168 ine HFpEF (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.09-1.72), and HFrEF (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.40-1.86).

169 factors for incident hospitalized HFpEF and HFrEF in a multiracial cohort of 42 170 postmenopausal w

170 A total of 99 767 patients with HFrEF in Get With The Guidelines-HF were hospitalized fo

171 Among 2,588 U.S. outpatients with chronic HFrEF in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients

172 F hospitalization in patients with HRpEF and HFrEF in unadjusted analyses.

173 heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in clinical trials.

174 heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the real-world setting is not well described.

175 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in women and differences by race/ethnicity are no

176 ents with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), including the influence of sex and patient effor

177 heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFREF) increased mortality, although the analysis of the

178 HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFREF), irrespective of the occurrence of worsening rena

179 HFrEF is a major public health concern with substantial

180 While HFrEF is characterized by defective EC coupling at basel

181 uggested to underlie exercise intolerance in HFrEF is excessive locomotor muscle group III/IV afferen

182 ideline-directed pharmacological therapy for HFrEF is important; however, although there are various

183 del replicates, focusing on whether HFpEF or HFrEF is induced, to allow better investigation into pat

184 ssociated with use of MRAs for patients with HFrEF is reduced by sacubitril/valsartan in comparison w

185 for this different sex-related experience of HFrEF is unknown as is whether physicians recognize it.

186 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is characterized by blunting of the positive rela

187 retrospective cohort study of treated HFrEF (July 2015-June 2017) using Veterans Affairs data.

188 up III/IV afferent feedback in patients with HFrEF leads to increased systemic vascular resistance, w

189 tor muscle group III/IV afferent feedback in HFrEF leads to increased systemic vascular resistance, w

190 Although women with HFrEF live longer than men, their additional years of li

191 d randomized clinical trial of patients with HFrEF (<40%) and iron deficiency, defined as a serum fer

192 left ventricular assist device implantation (HFrEF(LVAD), n=4).

193 x-matched patients within 3 LVEF categories: HFrEF (LVEF <40%), HFmrEF (LVEF 40% to 50%), and HFpEF (

194 Patients with HFrEF, mean age of 57 years, mean left-ventricular eject

195 ht to characterize longitudinal titration of HFrEF medical therapy in clinical practice and to identi

196 This study suggests that women with HFrEF might need lower doses of ACE inhibitors or ARBs a

197 Patients with HFrEF (n = 782), HFpEF (n = 1,004), and no HF (n = 4,742

198 ents with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, n=30) and donor controls (n=24).

199 Importantly, HFrEF New York Heart Association class II-III patients w

200 HFrEF occurs when the left ventricular ejection fraction

201 ces morbidity and mortality in patients with HFrEF on GDMT, underscoring the important synergy of add

202 Among hospitalized older patients with HFrEF on more contemporary guideline-directed medical th

203 lantable electronic devices in patients with HFrEF on the basis of individual noninvasive FFR data ac

204 We did not find effect modification by HFrEF or HFpEF status.

205 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

206 countries, occurs in the setting of reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction.

207 failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

208 ater with fentanyl compared with placebo for HFrEF (P < 0.01), while no different in the controls.

209 ious myocardial infarction, and smoking with HFrEF (P value for each comparison </=0.02).

210 n terms of MEE and CO did not differ between HFrEF patents and age-matched volunteers.

211 ates between treatment and control groups in HFrEF patients (left ventricular ejection fraction </=40

212 Study 1: 16 chronic HFrEF patients (left ventricular ejection fraction: 37+/

213 blind, placebo-controlled trial, nondiabetic HFrEF patients (n = 84) were randomized to empagliflozin

214 Study 3 to 4: 10 HFrEF patients and 10 age-matched volunteers were random

215 the cardiovascular response differed between HFrEF patients and age-matched volunteers.

216 namic effects of 3-OHB were observed in both HFrEF patients and age-matched volunteers.

217 HFrEF patients and controls performed an incremental exe

218 Eleven HFrEF patients and eight healthy matched controls were r

219 was to modulate circulating 3-OHB levels in HFrEF patients and evaluate: (1) changes in cardiac outp

220 is contemporary U.S. registry, most eligible HFrEF patients did not receive target doses of medical t

221 HFrEF patients have increased risks of noncardiopulmonar

222 Of 2736000 patients with HFrEF patients in the United States, 2287296 (84%) were

223 transporter 2 inhibitors in the treatment of HFrEF patients independently of their glycemic status.

224 Empagliflozin administration to nondiabetic HFrEF patients significantly improves LV volumes, LV mas

225 Study 2: In a dose-response study, 8 HFrEF patients were examined at increasing 3-OHB infusio

226 In HFrEF patients with advanced CKD, the use of beta-blocke

227 duced high-energy phosphate decline than did HFrEF patients with low fatigability (New York Heart Ass

228 ssociations was similar to that observed for HFrEF patients with moderate CKD.

229 3-OHB has beneficial hemodynamic effects in HFrEF patients without impairing MEE.

230 Of 11,064 HFrEF patients, 1,851 (17%) developed worsening HF on av

231 e a distinct clinical profile from HFpEF and HFrEF patients, with objective measures of functional ca

232 ly constitute a novel treatment principle in HFrEF patients.

233 ty, and quality of life (QoL) in nondiabetic HFrEF patients.

234 Compared with patients with HFrEF, patients with HFpEF had a lower 1-year mortality

235 HFpEF and HF with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF]; pinteraction = 0.355).

236 A successful ANTHEM-HFrEF pivotal study would provide an important advance i

237 both ejection fraction (EF) status (reduced [HFrEF], preserved [HFpEF], not classifiable) and HF seve

238 HFmrEF resembled HFrEF rather than HFpEF with regard to both a higher pre

239 n and outcomes in hospitalized patients with HFrEF receiving more contemporary guideline-directed med

240 failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor

241 heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remain at high risk for hospitalization and morta

242 F hospitalization in patients with HFpEF and HFrEF, respectively.

243 to deliver autonomic regulation therapy for HFrEF, results of larger clinical trials have been incon

244 FpEF risk was also more consistent than with HFrEF risk, such that increasing BMI above the normal ra

245 PA in any dose range was not associated with HFrEF risk.

246 Among hospitalized older patients with HFrEF, SBP <130 mm Hg is associated with poor outcomes.

247 fentanyl, cardiac output was 12% greater in HFrEF secondary to significant decreases in systemic vas

248 Among MRA-treated patients with symptomatic HFrEF, severe hyperkalemia is more likely during treatme

249 re specific contraindications, patients with HFrEF should be treated with a beta-blocker and one of a

250 The HFrEF-specific model additionally included smoking, left

251 To generate HFrEF, Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats underwent permanent left

252 Embedded within the ANTHEM-HFrEF study is a second trial evaluating improvement in

253 The ANTHEM-HFrEF study uses a novel design, with adaptive sample si

254 The ANTHEM-HFrEF study will randomize patients (2:1) to autonomic r

255 Some risk factors differed between HFpEF and HFrEF, supporting the notion of pathogenetic differences

256 up trial in patients with stable symptomatic HFrEF taking optimal guideline-directed medical therapy

257 ons were identified that were more severe in HFrEF than HFpEF and were independently associated with

258 Mean HDL-P size was greater in HFrEF than HFpEF, both of which were greater than in no

259 f small HDL-P and total HDL-P were lesser in HFrEF than HFpEF, which were both lesser than no HF (all

260 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying det

261 Among patients with HFrEF, the anticipated aggregate treatment effects of ea

262 n) trial on the sGC stimulator vericiguat in HFrEF, the main open questions are the efficacy of the s

263 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), there has been limited attention over the years

264 Unlike HFrEF, there are no effective treatments for HFpEF, whic

265 hough numerous therapies improve outcomes in HFrEF, there are no effective treatments for HFpEF.

266 We used rat models of HFpEF and HFrEF to reveal distinct differences in intracellular ca

267 heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to reduce morbidity and mortality; however, the u

268 In this exploratory study of patients with HFrEF treated with sacubitril-valsartan, reduction in NT

269 study would provide an important advance in HFrEF treatment and offer a model for expediting evaluat

270 heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), treatment with sacubitril-valsartan reduces N-te

271 n 2 large HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) trials with near identical inclusion and exclusio

272 re created from 408 randomized patients with HFrEF using the following enrollment criteria: current N

273 rea of active UNGD, with similar findings by HFrEF versus HFpEF status.

274 the context of HF, with a specific focus on HFrEF versus HFpEF.

275 or contractility and rhythm, but compared to HFrEF, very little is known about calcium cycling in HFp

276 ariation by income level (p(interaction) for HFrEF vs HFpEF <0.0001).

277 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF] vs preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]), and bein

278 Treated HFrEF was defined by (1) left ventricular ejection fract

279 The risk of HFrEF was pronounced in veterans younger than 40 years a

280 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), we investigated the influence of locomotor muscl

281 Risk factors for both HFpEF and HFrEF were as follows: older age, white race, diabetes m

282 Few Veterans with treated HFrEF were switched to sacubitril/valsartan within the f

283 However, in contrast to patients with HFREF where mortality increase with WRF is small, HFPEF

284 cs, treatment, and outcomes of patients with HFrEF who develop worsening heart failure (HF) in the re

285 =6.5% at screening out of 8399 patients with HFrEF who were randomly assigned to treatment with sacub

286 healthcare utilization between Veterans with HFrEF who were switched to sacubitril/valsartan versus m

287 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), who tolerate an ACEI (angiotensin-converting enz

288 rtality was 36.7% (95% CI, 36.1-7.4) for all HFrEF with ADHF patients, 31.6% (95% CI, 30.3-32.9) for

289 1 year was 35.1% (95% CI, 34.5-35.8) for all HFrEF with ADHF patients, 32.6% (95% CI, 31.3-33.9) for

290 F with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; all HFrEF with ADHF).

291 mortality were then compared between the all HFrEF with ADHF, PIONEER-HF eligible, and actionable coh

292 tailor heart rate response in patients with HFrEF with cardiac implantable electronic devices favora

293 cal correlates, including a group closest to HFrEF with higher mortality, and a mostly female group w

294 Among participants with HFrEF with iron deficiency, high-dose oral iron did not

295 on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with HFrEF with or without diabetes: DAPA-HF (assessing dapag

296 Treatment of HFrEF with sacubitril-valsartan, compared with enalapril

297 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with or without diabetes.

298 clinical course than patients with HFpEF and HFrEF, with lower mortality, less frequent hospitalizati

299 4.94 in 2005-2009 and 5.45 in 2010-2013) and HFrEF (women: 4.78 in 2005-2009 to 5.14 in 2010-2013; me

300 In HFREF, WRF induced by RAAS inhibitor therapy was associa