Diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction – what's the score?

Kristensen, Søren Lund; McMurray, John J.V.

doi:10.1002/ejhf.1764

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The HFA-PEFF score is a systematic approach based on the experts' consensus, which was validated mostly with the noninvasive parameters [30]. That is why its "overoptimistic" results were questioned in the review by Kristensen et al [31]. In the study assessing the HFA-PEFF score against invasive hemodynamic parameters, a moderate predictive value (AUC = 0.73) was found.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnostic value of HFA-PEFF score, H₂FPEF score, and the diastolic stress echocardiography

Kubicius,

Gąsior,

Haberka

2024

Cardiol J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The aim of our study was to compare 3 diagnostic pathways: diastolic stress echocardiography (DSE) based on the ASE/EACVI 2016 guidelines, the 2018 H 2 FPEF score, and the 2019 HFA-PEFF algorithm, in patients suspected of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Material and methods:The study group included 80 consecutive patients with a clinical suspicion of HFpEF. The H 2 FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores and serum NT-proBNP concentrations were assessed in all the patients before they were sent for DSE. Results: The DSE-based pathway confirmed HFpEF in 17 (21%) patients, the HFA-PEFF algorithm in 43 (54%), and H 2 FPEF scoring in 4 (5%) patients. The ROC analysis showed that HFA-PEFF score > 5 predicts a DSE-positive test with a sensitivity of 70.5% and a specificity of 65%, (AUC = 0.711, p = 0.002) with a negative predictive value of 89.1% and positive predictive value of 35.3%. The H 2 FPEF score > 3 had a negative predictive value of 90%, a positive predictive value of 29.8%, and predicted positive DSE result with a sensitivity of 82.3% but rather poor specificity of 47.6% (AUC = 0.692, p = 0.004). Both H 2 FPEF and HFA-PEFF showed similar predictive values (AUC) in the prediction of positive DSE test (p = ns). Conclusions:The HFA-PEFF score overestimated the rate of HFpEF in comparison to DSE and the H 2 FPEF score. The H 2 FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores showed only modest predictive values of the positive DSE and had a diagnostic power to rule out the HFpEF.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnostic value of HFA-PEFF score, H₂FPEF score, and the diastolic stress echocardiography

Kubicius,

Gąsior,

Haberka

2024

Cardiol J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both have undergone independent validity testing, for H 2 F‐PEF and for HFA‐PEFF in another a paper in this issue . Together in this issue are also two insightful editorial comments concerning these papers . Both praise the attempts to define a scoring system, so there can follow some standardisation of the definition of HFpEF.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Validating the HFA‐PEFF score – or how to define a disease?

Coats

2020

European J of Heart Fail

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction – what's the score?

Cited by 2 publications

References 6 publications

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnostic value of HFA-PEFF score, H₂FPEF score, and the diastolic stress echocardiography

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnostic value of HFA-PEFF score, H₂FPEF score, and the diastolic stress echocardiography

Validating the HFA‐PEFF score – or how to define a disease?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About