Dataset Information

HFA-PEFF scores: prognostic value in heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

ABSTRACT:

Background/aims

The 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.

Methods

A 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).

Results

Kaplan-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.

Conclusion

HFA-PEFF scores may be useful for predicting HF-related events in HFpEF patients.

SUBMITTER: Egashira K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8747922 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine clinical and prognostic differences between preserved and deteriorated systolic function (defined as left ventricular (LV) ejection fractions > or = 50% and < 50%, respectively) in patients with heart failure satisfying modified Framingham criteria.Patients and methodsRecords were studied of 1252 patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) (mean (SD) age 69.4 (11.7) years; 485 women, 767 men) who had been admitted to a cardiology service for CHF in the period 1991-2002 and whose LV systolic function had been echocardiographically evaluated within two weeks of admission. Data were collected on the main clinical findings, supplementary examinations, treatment, and duration of hospitalisation. Whether the patient was alive in the spring of 2003 was evaluated by searching the general archives of the hospital and by telephone survey.ResultsLV systolic function was preserved in 39.8% of patients. Age, female to male sex ratio, and prevalence of atrial fibrillation, valve disease, and other non-ischaemic, non-dilated cardiopathies were all significantly greater in the group with preserved systolic function. New York Heart Association functional class IV, third heart sound, jugular vein congestion, cardiomegaly, radiological signs of lung oedema, pathological Q waves, left bundle branch block, sinus rhythm, ischaemic cardiopathy, and dilated cardiomyopathy were all significantly more prevalent in the group with deteriorated systolic function, as was treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and most other antihypertensive drugs on discharge from hospital. There was no significant difference in survival between the groups with preserved and deteriorated systolic function (either survival regardless of age at admission or in subgroups aged < 75 and > or = 75 years at admission). In the whole group, survival rates after one, three, and five years were 84.0%, 66.7%, and 50.9%, respectively.ConclusionIn view of the poor prognosis of patients with CHF with preserved LV systolic function, who are currently treated empirically, it is to be hoped that relevant controlled clinical trials under way will afford information allowing optimisation of their treatment.

Project description:AIMS:Neuregulin1-? (NRG1-?) is released from microvascular endothelial cells in response to inflammation with compensatory cardioprotective effects. Circulating NRG1-? is elevated in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but not studied in HF with preserved EF (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS:Circulating NRG1-? was quantified in 86 stable patients with HFpEF (EF ?45% and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide >300 ng/L), in 86 patients with HFrEF prior to and after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and/or heart transplantation (HTx) and in 21 healthy controls. Association between NRG1-? and the composite outcome of all-cause mortality/HF hospitalization in HFpEF and all-cause mortality/HTx/LVAD implantation in HFrEF with and without ischaemia assessed as macrovascular coronary artery disease was assessed. In HFpEF, median (25th-75th percentile) NRG1-? was 6.5 (2.1-11.3) ng/mL; in HFrEF, 3.6 (2.1-7.6) ng/mL (P = 0.035); after LVAD, 1.7 (0.9-3.6) ng/mL; after HTx 2.1 (1.4-3.6) ng/mL (overall P < 0.001); and in controls, 29.0 (23.1-34.3) ng/mL (P = 0.001). In HFrEF, higher NRG1-? was associated with worse outcomes (hazard ratio per log increase 1.45, 95% confidence interval 1.04-2.03, P = 0.029), regardless of ischaemia. In HFpEF, the association of NRG1-? with outcomes was modified by ischaemia (log-rank P = 0.020; Pinteraction = 0.553) such that only in ischaemic patients, higher NRG1-? was related to worse outcomes. In contrast, in patients without ischaemia, higher NRG1-? trended towards better outcomes (hazard ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.48-1.05, P = 0.085). CONCLUSIONS:Neuregulin1-? was reduced in HFpEF and further reduced in HFrEF. The opposing relationships of NRG1-? with outcomes in non-ischaemic HFpEF compared with HFrEF and ischaemic HFpEF may indicate compensatory increases of cardioprotective NRG1-? from microvascular endothelial dysfunction in the former (non-ischaemic HFpEF), but this compensatory mechanism is overwhelmed by the presence of ischaemia in the latter (HFrEF and ischaemic HFpEF).