Dataset Information

Diagnostic and prognostic implications of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction scoring systems.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

We sought to compare the generalizability and prognostic implications of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) scores (HFA-PEFF and H₂ FPEF score) in Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) and Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibition to Improve Clinical Status and Exercise Capacity in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (RELAX) trial participants and matched controls from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Community (ARIC) study.

Methods and results

Based on the respective scores, the study participants from the TOPCAT (N = 356), RELAX (N = 216), and ARIC (N = 379) studies were categorized as having a low, intermediate, or high likelihood of HFpEF. Age, sex, and race matched controls free of cardiovascular disease who had unexplained dyspnoea were used to evaluate the diagnostic performance. The prognostic value of scores was assessed using multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analyses. The median HFA-PEFF scores in the TOPCAT, RELAX, and ARIC studies were 5.0 [interquartile range (IQR): 5.0-6.0], 4.0 (IQR: 2.0-4.0), and 3.0 (IQR: 2.0-4.0), respectively. The median H₂ FPEF scores in the three studies were 5.5 (IQR: 4.0-7.0), 6.0 (IQR: 4.0-7.0), and 3.0 (IQR: 2.0-5.0), respectively. A low HFA-PEFF and H₂ FPEF score can rule out HFpEF with high sensitivity (99.5% and 99.6%, respectively) and negative predictive value (95.7% and 98.3%, respectively). A high HFA-PEFF and H₂ FPEF score can rule-in HFpEF with good specificity (82.8% and 95.6%, respectively) and positive predictive value (79.9% and 90.4%, respectively). Among TOPCAT participants, the hazard for adverse cardiovascular events per point increase in HFA-PEFF and H₂ FPEF score was 1.26 (95% confidence interval: 0.98-1.63) and 1.01 (95% confidence interval: 0.88-1.15), respectively. A higher H₂ FPEF score was associated with lower peak oxygen intake in RELAX trial participants (adjusted P = 0.01).

Conclusions

The HFA-PEFF and the H₂ FPEF scores are reliable diagnostic tools for HFpEF. The prognostic utility of HFpEF scores requires further validation in larger rigorously phenotyped populations.

SUBMITTER: Parcha V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8120372 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AIMS:This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic significance of nutritional status in post-discharge Asians with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS:We examined the prognostic implications of body mass index (BMI) and nutritional markers among consecutive patients hospitalized for HFpEF. Nutritional metrics were estimated by serum albumin (SA), prognostic nutritional index (PNI), Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score, and geriatric nutritional risk index. Among 1120 patients (mean age: 77.2 ± 12.6 years, 39.4% men), mean SA levels, PNI, CONUT scores, and geriatric nutritional risk index were 3.3 ± 0.6 g/dL, 40.2 ± 8.7, 5.5 ± 2.1, and 95.9 ± 14.5, respectively. Lean body size, higher white blood cell counts and C-reactive protein levels, anaemia, and lack of angiotensin blocker use were independently associated with malnutrition (defined by SA < 3.5 g/dL). Higher SA levels [hazard ratio (HR): 0.67 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.53-0.85)], higher PNI [HR: 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.99)], and higher geriatric nutritional risk index [HR: 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99)] (all P < 0.05) were all associated with longer survival, with higher CONUT score [HR: 1.08 (95% CI: 1.02-1.13)] exhibited higher mortality in Cox regression models and with higher SA levels/PNI but not BMI further contributing to the reduced rate of re-hospitalization (both P < 0.05). Categorizing BMI (25 kg/m2 as cut-off) and nutritional status showed significantly higher mortality rates among patients with lower BMI/malnutrition than among those with BMI/better nutrition (SA level, PNI, and CONUT score, all P < 0.01). Restricted cubic spline regression revealed a marked survival benefit of better nutrition with increasing BMI (adjusted Pinteraction for both SA level and PNI: <0.001; adjusted Pinteraction for CONUT score: 0.046). CONCLUSIONS:Malnutrition was frequently and strongly associated with systemic inflammation in Asian patients hospitalized for acute HFpEF. Our findings also indicate that nutrition may play a pivotal role in metabolic protection in this population.

Project description:BackgroundHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction is a complex and heterogeneous clinical syndrome, poses significant diagnostic challenges. The HFA-PEFF [Heart Failure Association of ESC diagnostic algorithm, P (Pretest Assessment), E (Echocardiographic and Natriuretic Peptide score), F1 (Functional testing in Case of Uncertainty), F2 (Final Aetiology)] and H2FPEF [Heavy (BMI>30 kg/m2), Hypertensive (use of ≥2 antihypertensive medications), atrial Fibrillation (paroxysmal or persistent), Pulmonary hypertension (Doppler Echocardiographic estimated Pulmonary Artery Systolic Pressure >35 mm Hg), Elderly (age >60 years), Filling pressure (Doppler Echocardiographic E/e' >9)] scoring systems were developed to aid in diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. This study aimed to assess the concordance and clinical accuracy of these scoring systems in the 'A comPrehensive, ObservationaL registry of heart faiLure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fractiON' cohort.MethodsA comPrehensive, ObservationaL registry of heart faiLure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fractiON study was conducted as a multicenter, cross-sectional, and observational study; to evaluate a group of Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients who were seen by cardiologists in 13 participating centers across 12 cities in Türkiye.ResultsThe study enrolled 819 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, with high probability heart failure with preserved ejection fraction rates of 40% and 26% for HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scorings, respectively. The concordance between the 2 scoring systems was found to be low (Kendall's taub correlation coefficient of 0.242, P < .001). The diagnostic performance of both scoring systems was evaluated, revealing differences in their approach and ability to accurately identify heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients.ConclusionThe low concordance between the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scoring systems underscores the ongoing challenge of accurately diagnosing and managing patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Clinicians should be aware of the strengths and limitations of each scoring system and use them in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings to arrive at an accurate diagnosis. Future research should focus on identifying additional diagnostic factors, developing more accurate and comprehensive diagnostic algorithms, and investigating alternative methods of diagnosis or stratification of patients based on different clinical characteristics.

Project description:AimsHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous condition, and tissue congestion manifested by oedema is not present in all patients. We compared clinical characteristics, exercise capacity, and outcomes in patients with HFpEF with and without oedema.Methods and resultsThis study was a post hoc analysis of pooled data of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥50% enrolled in the DOSE, CARRESS-HF, RELAX, ATHENA, ROSE, INDIE, and NEAT trials. Patients were dichotomized by the severity of oedema. Cox proportional hazard regression and generalized linear regression models were used to assess associations between oedema, symptoms, and clinical outcomes. The ambulatory cohort included 393 patients (228 with and 165 without oedema), and the hospitalized cohort included 338 patients (249 with ≥moderate oedema and 89 with mild or none). Among ambulatory patients, patients with oedema had a higher body mass index (35.2 kg/m2 [inter-quartile range, IQR 30.5, 41.6] vs. 31.6 kg/m2 [IQR 27.9, 36.3], P < 0.001), greater burden of co-morbidities, higher intravascular pressures estimated on physical examination (elevated jugular venous pressure: 50% vs. 24.7%, P < 0.001), poorer renal function (creatinine: 1.2 mg/dL [IQR 0.9, 1.5] vs. 1 mg/dL [IQR 0.8, 1.3], P = 0.003), and lower peak VO2 (adjusted mean difference -1.04 mL/kg/min, 95% confidence interval [-1.71, -0.37], P < 0.003). Among hospitalized patients, despite greater in-hospital fluid/weight loss in the ≥moderate oedema group, there was no difference in the improvement in dyspnoea by the visual analogue scale or well-being visual analogue scale from baseline to 3-4 days and no statistically significant difference in the rate of 60 day rehospitalization/death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval [0.87, 2.39], P = 0.156).ConclusionsPatients with HFpEF and oedema display higher body mass, greater burden of co-morbidities, and more severe exercise intolerance, but clinical responses to treatment appear similar. Further research is required to better understand the nature of volume distribution in different HFpEF phenotypes.

Project description:BackgroundLeft atrial (LA) size is an established marker of risk for adverse outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, the independent prognostic importance of LA function in HFpEF is not known.Methods and resultsWe assessed LA function measured by speckle-tracking echocardiography in 357 patients with HFpEF enrolled in the Treatment Of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trial who were in sinus rhythm at the time of echocardiography. Lower peak LA strain, indicating LA dysfunction, was associated with older age, higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation and left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, worse LV and right ventricular systolic function, and worse LV diastolic function. At a mean follow-up of 31 months (interquartile range, 18-43months), 91 patients (25.5%) experienced the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, and aborted sudden death. Lower peak LA strain was associated with a higher risk of the composite end point (hazard ratio, 0.96 per unit of reduction in strain; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-0.99; P=0.009) and of HF hospitalization alone (hazard ratio, 0.95 per unit of reduction in strain; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.98; P=0.003). The association of LA strain with incident HF hospitalization remained significant after adjustment for clinical confounders, but not after further adjustment for LV global longitudinal strain and the E/E' ratio, parameters of LV systolic and diastolic function, respectively.ConclusionsLA dysfunction in HFpEF is associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization independent of potential clinical confounders, but not independent of LV strain and filling pressure. Impairment in LV systolic and diastolic function largely explains the association between impaired LA function and higher risk of HF hospitalization in HFpEF.Clinical trial registrationURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00094302.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study sought to describe characteristics and risk of adverse outcomes associated with the H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores among participants in the community with unexplained dyspnea.BackgroundDiagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) can be challenging. The H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores have recently been developed to estimate the likelihood that HFpEF is present among patients with unexplained dyspnea.MethodsThe study included 4,892 ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities) study participants 67 to 90 years of age at visit 5 (2011 to 2013) without other common cardiopulmonary causes of dyspnea. Participants were categorized as asymptomatic (76.6%), having known HFpEF (10.3%), and having tertiles of each score among those with ≥moderate, self-reported dyspnea (13.1%). The primary outcome was heart failure (HF) hospitalization or death.ResultsMean age was 75 ± 5 years, 58% were women, and 22% were black. After a mean follow-up of 5.3 ± 1.2 years, rates of HF hospitalization or death per 1,000 person-years for asymptomatic and known HFpEF were 20.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.9 to 22.7) and 71.6 (95% CI: 61.6 to 83.3), respectively. Among 641 participants with unexplained dyspnea, rates were 27.7 (95% CI: 18.2 to 42.1), 44.9 (95% CI: 34.9 to 57.7), and 47.3 (95% CI: 36.5 to 61.3) (tertiles of H2FPEF score) and 31.8 (95% CI: 20.3 to 49.9), 32.4 (95% CI: 23.4 to 44.9), and 54.3 (95% CI: 43.8 to 67.3) (tertiles of HFA-PEFF score). Participants with unexplained dyspnea and scores above the diagnostic threshold suggested for each algorithm, H2FPEF score ≥6 and HFA-PEFF score ≥5, had equivalent risk of HF hospitalization or death compared with known HFpEF. Among those with unexplained dyspnea, 28% had "discordant" findings (only high risk by 1 algorithm), while 4% were high risk by both.ConclusionsParticipants with unexplained dyspnea and higher H2FPEF or HFA-PEFF scores face substantial risks of HF hospitalization or death. A significant fraction of patients are classified discordantly by using both algorithms.