The HFA-PEFF and H2 FPEF scores largely disagree in classifying patients with suspected heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sanders-van Wijk S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8359393 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Exercise intolerance is a primary manifestation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and is associated with abnormal hemodynamics and a poor quality of life. Two multiparametric scoring systems have been proposed to diagnose HFpEF. This study sought to determine the performance of the H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores for predicting exercise capacity and echocardiographic findings of intracardiac pressures during exercise in subjects with dyspnea on exertion referred for bicycle stress echocardiography. In a subset, simultaneous expired gas analysis was performed to measure the peak oxygen consumption (VO2). Patients with HFpEF (n = 83) and controls without HF (n = 104) were enrolled. The H2FPEF score was obtainable for all patients while the HFA-PEFF score could not be calculated for 23 patients (feasibility 88%). Both H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores correlated with a higher E/e' ratio (r = 0.49 and r = 0.46), lower systolic tricuspid annular velocity (r = - 0.44 and = - 0.24), and lower cardiac output (r = - 0.28 and r = - 0.24) during peak exercise. Peak VO2 and exercise duration decreased with an increase in H2FPEF scores (r = - 0.40 and r = - 0.32). The H2FPEF score predicted a reduced aerobic capacity (AUC 0.71, p = 0.0005), but the HFA-PEFF score did not (p = 0.07). These data provide insights into the role of the H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores for predicting exercise intolerance and abnormal hemodynamics in patients presenting with exertional dyspnea.
| S-EPMC8742061 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is common in patients presenting with dyspnoea. Recently, clinical tools were developed to facilitate the diagnosis of HFpEF. Here, we apply the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2016 heart failure guidelines and the H2 FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores to a middle-aged sample of the general population and compared the different groups with each other.Methods and resultsThis study included the first 10 000 participants of the population-based Hamburg City Health Study. A total of 5613 subjects, aged 62 ± 8.7 years (51.1% women), qualified for the analysis. Unexplained dyspnoea was present in 407 (7.3%) subjects. In those, the estimated prevalence of HFpEF was 20.4% (ESC 2016), 12.3% (H2 FPEF), and 7.6% (HFA-PEFF). The majority of subjects was classified as HFpEF not excludable according to the HFA-PEFF (57.7%) and H2 FPEF (59.2%) scores. For all algorithms, subjects diagnosed with HFpEF showed elevated age and body mass index as well as a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and arterial hypertension compared with those without HFpEF or HFpEF not excludable. The distribution of those co-morbidities and risk factors varied between the differently diagnosed HFpEF groups with the highest burden in the HFpEF group defined by the H2 FPEF score. The overlap of subjects diagnosed with HFpEF according to the different algorithms was very limited.ConclusionsUnexplained dyspnoea is common in the middle-aged general population. The ESC 2016 algorithm and the H2 FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores detect different, discordant subpopulations of probands with breathlessness. Further classification of the HFpEF syndrome is desirable.
| S-EPMC8497222 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsThe Heart Failure Association (HFA)-PEFF score is recognized as a simple method to diagnose heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between HFA-PEFF scores and cardiovascular outcomes in HFpEF patients.MethodsA total of 502 consecutive HFpEF patients were prospectively observed for up to 1,500 days. Cardiovascular outcomes were compared between two groups of patients, defined by their HFA-PEFF scores: those who scored 2-4 (the intermediate-score group) and those who scored 5-6 group (the high-score group). Overall, 236 cardiovascular events were observed during the follow-up period (median, 1,159 days).ResultsKaplan-Meier analysis showed that there were significant differences in composite cardiovascular events and HF-related events between the intermediate-score group and the high-score group (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001, respectively). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that the HFA-PEFF scores significantly predicted future HF-related events (hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11 to 2.50; p = 0.014); receiver operating characteristic analysis confirmed this relationship (area under the curve, 0.633; 95% CI, 0.574 to 0.692; p < 0.001). The cutoff HFA-PEFF score for the identification of HF-related events was 4.5. Decision curve analysis revealed that combining the HFA-PEFF score with conventional prognostic factors improved the prediction of HF-related events.ConclusionHFA-PEFF scores may be useful for predicting HF-related events in HFpEF patients.
| S-EPMC8747922 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aims: HFA-PEFF score has been proposed for diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Currently, there are only a limited number of tools for predicting the prognosis. In this study, we evaluated whether the HFA-PEFF score can predict mortality in patients with HFpEF. Methods: This single-center, retrospective observational study enrolled patients diagnosed with HFpEF at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between January 1, 2015, and April 30, 2018. The subjects were divided according to their HFA-PEFF score into low (0-2 points), intermediate (3-4 points), and high (5-6 points) score groups. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Results: A total of 358 patients (mean age: 70.21 ± 8.64 years, 58.1% female) were included. Of these, 63 (17.6%), 156 (43.6%), and 139 (38.8%) were classified into the low, intermediate, and high score groups, respectively. Over a mean follow-up of 26.9 months, 46 patients (12.8%) died. The percentage of patients who died in the low, intermediate, and high score groups were 1 (1.6%), 18 (11.5%), and 27 (19.4%), respectively. A multivariate Cox regression identified HFA-PEFF score as an independent predictor of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR):1.314, 95% CI: 1.013-1.705, P = 0.039]. A Cox analysis demonstrated a significantly higher rate of mortality in the intermediate (HR: 4.912, 95% CI 1.154-20.907, P = 0.031) and high score groups (HR: 5.291, 95% CI: 1.239-22.593, P = 0.024) than the low score group. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis indicated that the HFA-PEFF score can effectively predict all-cause mortality after adjusting for age and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class [area under the curve (AUC) 0.726, 95% CI 0.651-0.800, P = 0.000]. With an HFA-PEFF score cut-off value of 3.5, the sensitivity and specificity were 78.3 and 54.8%, respectively. The AUC on ROC analysis for the biomarker component of the score was similar to that of the total score. Conclusions: The HFA-PEFF score can be used both to diagnose HFpEF and predict the prognosis. The higher scores are associated with higher all-cause mortality.
| S-EPMC8585787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe HFA-PEFF score is a part of the stepwise diagnostic algorithm of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We aimed to evaluate the prognostic significance of the HFA-PEFF score on the clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF.Methods and resultsThe Prospective mUlticenteR obServational stUdy of patIenTs with Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction (PURSUIT-HFpEF) study is a prospective, multicentre, observational study in which collaborating hospitals in Osaka record clinical, echocardiographic, and outcome data of patients with acute decompensated heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (≥50%) [UMIN-CTR ID: UMIN000021831]. Acute decompensated heart failure was diagnosed on the basis of the following criteria: (i) clinical symptoms and signs according to the Framingham Heart Study criteria; and (ii) serum N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level of ≥400 pg/mL or brain natriuretic peptide level of ≥100 pg/mL. The HFA-PEFF score has functional, morphological, and biomarker domains. We evaluated the prognostic significance of the HFA-PEFF score (calculated based on the data at hospital discharge) on post-discharge clinical outcomes in this cohort. The primary endpoint of the present study was a composite of all-cause death and heart failure readmission. Between June 2016 and December 2019, 871 patients were enrolled from 26 hospitals (mean follow-up duration 399 ± 349 days). A total of 804 patients were finally analysed after excluding patients with scores of 0 (N = 5) and 1 (N = 15) from 824 patients with available HFA-PEFF score based on the echocardiographic and laboratory data at discharge. According to the laboratory and echocardiographic data at the time of discharge, 487 patients (59.1%) were diagnosed as HFpEF (HFA-PEFF score ≥ 5) while 317 patients (38.5%) had intermediate score. Kaplan-Meier analysis divided by the HFA-PEFF score [low, score 2-5 (N = 494) vs. high, score 6 (N = 310)] indicated that the HFA-PEFF score successfully stratified the patients for the primary endpoint (log-rank test P < 0.001). Cox proportional hazard model showed that the HFA-PEFF score was significantly associated with the primary endpoint (high score with reference to low score, adjusted hazard ratio 1.446, 95% confidence interval [1.099-1.902], P = 0.008).ConclusionThe HFA-PEFF score at discharge was significantly associated with the post-discharge clinical outcomes in acute decompensated heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction. This study suggested clinical usefulness of the HFA-PEFF score not only as a diagnostic tool but also a practical prognostic tool.
| S-EPMC8120389 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10510413 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a common disorder with few effective treatments. There is currently no evidence-based method to identify preclinical HFpEF. The H2FPEF score is a validated instrument to identify patients with overt HFpEF. Here we show the H2FPEF score can identify individuals with preclinical HFpEF. Among individuals where heart failure was excluded (n=160), increasing H2FPEF score was shown to be associated with greater left atrial dilation, left ventricular hypertrophy, and more severe diastolic dysfunction. Patients with increasing H2FPEF score displayed higher pulmonary artery pressures, higher left heart filling pressures, lower cardiac index, and more severely impaired aerobic capacity during exercise. In summary, we show that among adults without heart failure, higher H2FPEF score is associated with subclinical abnormalities that resemble those observed in HFpEF. These findings broaden the external validity of the H2FPEF score and suggest that this instrument may help identify patients positioned to benefit from preventive interventions.
| S-EPMC9164289 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of the HFA-PEFF score in predicting the long-term risks in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and an HFA-PEFF score ≥ 2. The subjects were divided according to their HFA-PEFF score into intermediate (2−3 points) and high (4−6 points) score groups. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Of 1018 patients with AMI and an HFA-PEFF score of ≥2, 712 (69.9%) and 306 (30.1%) were classified into the intermediate and high score groups, respectively. Over a median follow-up of 4.8 (3.2, 6.5) years, 114 (16.0%) and 87 (28.4%) patients died in each group. Multivariate Cox regression identified a high HFA-PEFF score as an independent predictor of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 1.53, 95% CI: 1.15−2.04, p = 0.004]. The predictive accuracies for the discrimination and reclassification were significantly improved (C-index 0.750 [95% CI 0.712−0.789]; p = 0.049 and NRI 0.330 [95% CI 0.180−0.479]; p < 0.001) upon the addition of a high HFA-PEFF score to clinical risk factors. The model was better at predicting combined events of all-cause mortality and heart failure readmission (C-index 0.754 [95% CI 0.716−0.791]; p = 0.033, NRI 0.372 [95% CI 0.227−0.518]; p < 0.001). In the AMI cohort, the HFA-PEFF score can effectively predict the prognosis of patients with an HFA-PEFF score of ≥2.
| S-EPMC9369752 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe relative importance of left atrial reservoir strain (LASr) regarding the Heart Failure Association Pre-test assessment, Echocardiography and natriuretic peptide, Functional testing, Final etiology (HFA-PEFF) score, a diagnostic tool for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), remains unclear. We aimed to identify the relative importance of LASr compared with variables associated with HFpEF and HFA-PEFF scores.MethodsBetween August 2021 and July 2022, we obtained retrospective data from the participants visiting a single cardiovascular center with subjective symptoms of heart failure, such as dyspnea or chest discomfort. In total, 2,712 participants with sinus rhythm and ejection fraction of more than 50% were enrolled. Multivariable logistic regression analysis, random forest analysis, and supervised machine learning algorithms were performed to identify the relative importance of LASr to the HFA-PEFF score.ResultsThe average HFA-PEFF score was 2.4 ± 1.6 points. Two hundred and thirty-eight participants had 5 or 6 points. LASr showed a moderate correlation with the HFA-PEFF score (r = -0.50, p < 0.001). Impaired LASr < 25.2% was an independent variable affecting a high HFA-PEFF score with traditional diastolic function parameters and components of the HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithm. The odds ratio (OR) [1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23-2.47] for LASr was higher compared to that of left ventricular global longitudinal strain (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.14-2.21), septal E/e' (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.85-1.77), and relative wall thickness (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.76-1.89). LASr was also a relatively more important variable in estimating a high HFA-PEFF score than TR-Vmax, septal E/e', septal e', left ventricular mass index, and relative wall thickness, the major echocardiographic components of the HFA-PEFF score.ConclusionsLASr is an important factor with components of the HFA-PEFF score and is a useful tool to assess patients with HFpEF.Clinical trial registrationURL: https://clinicaltrials.org. Unique identifiers: NCT05638230.
| S-EPMC10602785 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveThis study sought to assess the predictive value of H2FPEF score in patients with COVID-19.DesignRetrospective study.SettingRush University Medical Center.ParticipantsA total of 1682 patients had an echocardiogram in the year preceding their COVID-19 admission with a preserved ejection fraction (≥50%). A total of 156 patients met inclusion criteria.InterventionsPatients were divided into H2FPEF into low (0-2), intermediate (3-5), and high (6-9) score H2FPEF groups and outcomes were compared.Main outcome measuresAdjusted multivariable logistic regression models evaluated the association between H2FPEF score group and a composite outcome for severe COVID-19 infection consisting of (1) 60-day mortality or illness requiring (2) intensive care unit, (3) intubation, or (4) non-invasive positive pressure ventilation.ResultsHigh H2FPEF scores were at increased risk for severe COVID-19 infection when compared intermediate to H2FPEF score groups (OR 2.18 [CI: 1.01-4.80]; p = 0.049) and low H2FPEF score groups (OR 2.99 [CI: 1.22-7.61]; p < 0.05). There was no difference in outcome between intermediate H2FPEF scores (OR 1.34 [CI: 0.59-3.16]; p = 0.489) and low H2FPEF score.ConclusionsPatients with a high H2FPEF score were at increased risk for severe COVID-19 infection when compared to patients with an intermediate or low H2FPEF score regardless of regardless of coronary artery disease and chronic kidney disease.
| S-EPMC8887956 | biostudies-literature