Background: The magnitude and the prognostic impact of recovering left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure (HF) and systolic dysfunction is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients with HFrecEF in an HF population. Methods: 449 consecutive patients were selected with the diagnosis of HF and an evaluation of LVEF in the 6 months prior to selection who were referred to two HF units. Patients with systolic dysfunction were only considered if a second echocardiogram was performed during the follow-up. Results: At the time of diagnosis, 207 patients had LVEF > 40% (HFpEF) and 242 had LVEF ≤ 40% (HFrEF). After 1 year, the LVEF was re-evaluated in all 242 patients with a LVEF ≤ 40%: in 126 (52%), the second LVEF was > 40% (HFrecEF), and the remaining 116 (48%) had LVEF ≤ 40% (HFrEF). After 1800 ± 900 days of follow-up patients with recovered LVEF had a significantly lower mortality rate (HFpEF vs. HFrecEF: hazard ratio (HR) = 2.286, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.264–4.145, p = 0.019; HFrEF vs. HFrecEF: HR = 2.222, 95% CI 1.189–4.186, p < 0.001) and hospitalization rate (HFpEF vs. HFrecEF: HR = 1.411, 95% CI 1.046–1.903, p = 0.024; HFrEF vs. HFrecEF: HR = 1.388, 95% CI 1.002–1.924, p = 0.049). The following are predictors of LVEF recovery: younger age, lower functional class, treatment with renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors and beta-blockers, absence of defibrillator use, and non-ischemic aetiology. Conclusions: Patients with HF and reduced LVEF who were re-evaluated after 1 year, had significant improvement in their LVEF and had a more favourable prognosis than HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction. Background: The magnitude and the prognostic impact of recovering left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure (HF) and systolic dysfunction is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients with HFrecEF in an HF population. Methods: 449 consecutive patients were selected with the diagnosis of HF and an evaluation of LVEF in the 6 months prior to selection who were referred to two HF units. Patients with systolic dysfunction were only considered if a second echocardiogram was performed during the follow-up. Results: At the time of diagnosis, 207 patients had LVEF > 40% (HFpEF) and 242 had LVEF ≤ 40% (HFrEF). After 1 year, the LVEF was re-evaluated in all 242 patients with a LVEF ≤ 40%: in 126 (52%), the second LVEF was > 40% (HFrecEF), and the remaining 116 (48%) had LVEF ≤ 40% (HFrEF). After 1800 ± 900 days of follow-up patients with recovered LVEF had a significantly lower mortality rate (HFpEF vs. HFrecEF: hazard ratio (HR) = 2.286, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.264–4.145, p = 0.019; HFrEF vs. HFrecEF: HR = 2.222, 95% CI 1.189–4.186, p < 0.001) and hospitalization rate (HFpEF vs. HFrecEF: HR = 1.411, 95% CI 1.046–1.903, p = 0.024; HFrEF vs. HFrecEF: HR = 1.388, 95% CI 1.002–1.924, p = 0.049). The following are predictors of LVEF recovery: younger age, lower functional class, treatment with renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors and beta-blockers, absence of defibrillator use, and non-ischemic aetiology. Conclusions: Patients with HF and reduced LVEF who were re-evaluated after 1 year, had significant improvement in their LVEF and had a more favourable prognosis than HF with preserved and reduced ejection fraction.

Aim: Patients with advanced heart failure (AHF) who are not candidates to advanced therapies have poor prognosis. Some trials have shown that intermittent levosimendan can reduce HF hospitalizations in AHF in the short term. In this real-life registry, we describe the patterns of use, safety and factors related to the response to intermittent levosimendan infusions in AHF patients not candidates to advanced therapies. Methods and results: Multicentre retrospective study of patients diagnosed with advanced heart failure, not HT or LVAD candidates. Patients needed to be on the optimal medical therapy according to their treating physician. Patients with de novo heart failure or who underwent any procedure that could improve prognosis were not included in the registry. Four hundred three patients were included; 77.9% needed at least one admission the year before levosimendan was first administered because of heart failure. Death rate at 1 year was 26.8% and median survival was 24.7 [95% CI: 20.4–26.9] months, and 43.7% of patients fulfilled the criteria for being considered a responder lo levosimendan (no death, heart failure admission or unplanned HF visit at 1 year after first levosimendan administration). Compared with the year before there was a significant reduction in HF admissions (38.7% vs. 77.9%; P < 0.0001), unplanned HF visits (22.7% vs. 43.7%; P < 0.0001) or the combined event including deaths (56.3% vs. 81.4%; P < 0.0001) during the year after. We created a score that helps predicting the responder status at 1 year after levosimendan, resulting in a score summatory of five variables: TEER (+2), treatment with beta-blockers (+1.5), Haemoglobin >12 g/dL (+1.5), amiodarone use (−1.5) HF visit 1 year before levosimendan (−1.5) and heart rate >70 b.p.m. (−2). Patients with a score less than −1 had a very low probability of response (21.5% free of death or HF event at 1 year) meanwhile those with a score over 1.5 had the better chance of response (68.4% free of death or HF event at 1 year). LEVO-D score performed well in the ROC analysis. Conclusion: In this large real-life series of AHF patients treated with levosimendan as destination therapy, we show a significant decrease of heart failure events during the year after the first administration. The simple LEVO-D Score could be of help when deciding about futile therapy in this population.