English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Abstract  Currently, the assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the cornerstone of the classification of patients with heart failure (HF). The mid‐range LVEF (HFmrEF) category was identified in an attempt to uncover specific characteristics of these patients. So far, the analysis of trials, registries, and observational studies have demonstrated that patients with mid‐range LVEF belong to a patient cohort with generally intermediate clinical profile as compared with other groups but with a remarkable variety of intrinsic phenotypes. This is due to the limitations of LVEF as the sole criterion to categorize patients with HF and characterize their prognosis, above all when it is &gt;40%. To better define the HFmrEF phenotype, it is reasonable to consider other parameters, such as LVEF changes over time, HF aetiology, co‐morbidities, and other imaging parameters. A multiparametric evaluation may contextualize a patient with HFmrEF in a more defined phenotype with a specific prognosis.

Heart failure with mid‐range ejection fraction: pro and cons of the new classification of Heart Failure by European Society of Cardiology guidelines