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: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:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represents a heterogeneous collection of conditions that are unified by the presence of a left ventricular ejection fraction ?50%, evidence of impaired diastolic function and elevated natriuretic peptide levels, all within the context of typical heart failure signs and symptoms. However, while HFpEF is steadily becoming the predominant form of heart failure, disease-modifying treatment options for this population remain sparse. This review provides an overview of the diagnosis, management and prevention of HFpEF for general physicians.
| S-EPMC6334030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is increasing in prevalence as the general population ages. Poorly managed heart failure symptoms of decompensated HFpEF is one of the most common reasons for prolonged hospital admission. The high rate of morbidity and mortality associated with HFpEF is compounded by a poor understanding of the underpinning pathophysiology. Randomized controlled trials have so far been unable to identify an evidence base for reducing morbidity and mortality in patients with HFpEF, although there is some evidence to support quality of life (QOL) improvement. In this review, we described the recent advances on the pathophysiological understanding of HFpEF, the current and emerging treatment strategies, and what this may mean for individual patients. Potential treatments for HFpEF were divided into their relative management strategies and the current evidence assessed for effect on HFpEF mortality, hospital admission frequency, and QOL improvement. Overall, the understanding of HFpEF pathophysiology is improving and has been made a priority in identifying potential therapeutic targets. There is growing evidence that patients with ejection fractions (EF) of less than 60% may obtain a mortality benefit from ACE-inhibitors, angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors, Angiotensin Receptor Blockers, and Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists. However, this covers only a small proportion of the HFpEF spectrum. Therefore, currently there are no universal treatment strategies recommended for HFpEF, and management should focus on an individualised approach and this should take into account the comorbidities of each patient.
| S-EPMC7186731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular diseases are common cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with systemic connective tissue diseases (SCTD) due to accelerated atherosclerosis which couldn't be explained by traditional risk factors (CVDRF).HypothesisWe hypothesized that recently developed score predicting probability of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (H2 FPEF), as well as a measure of right ventricular-pulmonary vasculature coupling [tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE)/pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) ratio], are predictive of atherosclerosis in SCTD.Methods203 patients (178 females) diagnosed with SCTD underwent standard and stress-echocardiography (SE) with TAPSE/PASP and left ventricular (LV) diastolic filling pressure (E/e') measurements, carotid ultrasound and computed tomographic coronary angiography. Patients who were SE positive for ischemia underwent coronary angiography (34/203). The H2 FPEF score was calculated according to age, body mass index, presence of atrial fibrillation, ≥2 antihypertensives, E/e' and PASP.ResultsMean LV ejection fraction was 66.3 ± 7.1%. Atherosclerosis was present in 150/203 patients according to: 1) intima-media thickness>0.9 mm; and 2) Agatstone score > 300 or Syntax score ≥ 1. On binary logistic regression analysis, including CVDRF prevalence, echocardiographic parameters and H2 FPEF score, only H2 FPEF score remained significant for the prediction of atherosclerosis presence (χ2 = 19.3, HR 2.6, CI 1.5-4.3, p < 0.001), and resting TAPSE/PASP for the prediction of a SE positive for ischemia (χ2 = 10.4, HR 0.01, CI = 0.01-0.22, p = 0.004). On ROC analysis, the optimal threshold value for identifying patients with atherosclerosis was a H2 FPEF score ≥2 (Sn 60.4%, Sp 69.4%, area 0.67, SE = 0.05, p < 0.001).ConclusionsH2 FPEF score and resting TAPSE/PASP demonstrated clinical value for an atherosclerosis diagnosis in patients diagnosed with SCTD.
| S-EPMC8259163 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heart failure is defined as a clinical syndrome and is known to present with a number of different pathophysiological patterns. There is a remarkable degree of variation in measures of left ventricular systolic emptying and this has been used to categorise heart failure into two separate types: low ejection fraction (EF) heart failure or HF-REF and high EF heart failure or HF-PEF. Here we review the pathophysiology, epidemiology and management of HF-PEF and argue that sharp separation of heart failure into two forms is misguided and illogical, and the present scarcity of clinical trial evidence for effective treatment for HF-PEF is a problem of our own making; we should never have excluded patients from major trials on the basis of EF in the first place. Whilst as many heart failure patients have preserved EFs as reduced we have dramatically under-represented HF-PEF patients in trials. Only four trials have been performed in HF-PEF specifically, and another two trials that recruited both HF-PEF and HF-REF can be considered. When we consider the similarity in outcomes and neurohormonal activation between HF-REF and HF-REF, the vast corpus of trial data that we have to attest to the efficacy of various treatment (angiotensin-converting-enzyme [ACE] inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], beta-blockers and aldosterone antagonists) in HF-REF, and the much more limited number of trials of similar agents showing near statistically significant benefits in HF-PEF the time has come rethink our management of HF-PEF, and in particular our selection of patients for trials.
| S-EPMC5490948 | biostudies-other