Predictive value of H 2 FPEF score in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Self Cite

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.

Section: Comorbidities and Prognostic Factors In Hfpefmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictive Value of HFA-PEFF Score in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Sun

et al. 2021

Self Cite

“…The latest data show that the prevalence of HFmrEF in hospitalized patients ranged from 13 to 26% (9)(10)(11), while the prevalence in outpatients varied from 9 to 21% (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17). Nevertheless, previous studies mostly focused on HFrEF and HFpEF, with less attention paid to HFmrEF until now (18,19). Consequently, less is known regarding the clinical characteristics of patients with HFmrEF, and with limited evidence on which to base recommendation for therapy (20).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heart Failure With Midrange Ejection Fraction: Prior Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Prognosis

Zhang

Sun

Chen

et al. 2021

Self Cite

Aims: Evidence-based guidelines for heart failure management depend mainly on current left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, fewer studies have examined the impact of prior LVEF. Patients may enter the heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF) category when heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) deteriorates or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) improves. In this study, we examined the association between change in LVEF and adverse outcomes.Methods: HFmrEF patients with at least two or more echocardiograms 3 months apart at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between September 1, 2015 and November 30, 2019 were identified. According to the prior LVEF, the subjects were divided into improved group (prior LVEF < 40%), stable group (prior LVEF between 40 and 50%), and deteriorated group (prior LVEF ≥ 50%). The primary outcomes were cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalization for worsening heart failure, and composite event of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization.Results: A total of 1,168 HFmrEF patients (67.04% male, mean age 63.60 ± 12.18 years) were included. The percentages of improved, stable, and deteriorated group were 310 (26.54%), 334 (28.60%), and 524 (44.86%), respectively. After a period of follow-up, 208 patients (17.81%) died and 500 patients met the composite endpoint. The rates of all-cause mortality were 35 (11.29%), 55 (16.47%), and 118 (22.52%), and the composite outcome was 102 (32.90%), 145 (43.41%), and 253 (48.28%) for the improved, stable, and deteriorated groups, respectively. Cox regression analysis showed that the deterioration group had higher risk of cardiovascular death (HR: 1.707, 95% CI: 1.064–2.739, P = 0.027), all-cause death (HR 1.948, 95% CI 1.335–2.840, P = 0.001), and composite outcome (HR 1.379, 95% CI 1.096–1.736, P = 0.006) compared to the improvement group. The association still remained significant after fully adjusted for both all-cause mortality (HR = 1.899, 95% CI 1.247–2.893, P = 0.003) and composite outcome (HR: 1.324, 95% CI: 1.020–1.718, P = 0.035).Conclusion: HFmrEF patients are heterogeneous with three different subsets identified, each with different outcomes. Strategies for managing HFmrEF should include previously measured LVEF to allow stratification based on direction changes in LVEF to better optimize treatment.

“…The widely used H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores were designed as diagnostic tools and were validated only on hospitalized, acute HFpEF population. The H2FPEF score might be a potentially useful marker for the prediction of cardiovascular and HF-related events in HFpEF patients ( 5 , 52 ). Sotomi et al found that the HFA-PEFF score is an excellent diagnostic tool, and it also has a practical prognostic value ( 4 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Prognostic Value of Lung Ultrasound in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in the Ambulatory Setting

Morvai-Illes

Polestyuk-Németh

Szabó

et al. 2021

Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a growing healthcare burden, and its prevalence is steadily increasing. Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a promising screening and prognostic tool in the heart failure population. However, more information on its value in predicting outcome is needed.Aims: The aim of our study was to assess the prognostic performance of LUS B-lines compared to traditional and novel clinical and echocardiographic parameters and natriuretic peptide levels in patients with newly diagnosed HFpEF in an ambulatory setting.Methods: In our prospective cohort study, all ambulatory patients with clinical suspicion of HFpEF underwent comprehensive echocardiography, lung ultrasound and NT-proBNP measurement during their first appointment at our cardiology outpatient clinic. Our endpoint was a composite of worsening heart failure symptoms requiring hospitalization or loop diuretic dose escalation and death.Results: We prospectively enrolled 75 consecutive patients with HFpEF who matched our inclusion and exclusion criteria. We detected 11 events on a 26 ± 10-months follow-up. We found that the predictive value of B-lines is similar to the predictive value of NT-proBNP (AUC 0.863 vs. 0.859), with the best cut-off at >15 B-lines. Having more B-lines than 15 significantly increased the likelihood of adverse events with a hazard ratio of 20.956 (p = 0.004). The number of B-lines remained an independent predictor of events at multivariate modeling. Having more than 15 B-lines lines was associated with a significantly worse event-free survival (Log-rank: 16.804, p < 0.001).Conclusion: The number of B-lines seems to be an independent prognostic factor for adverse outcomes in HFpEF. Since it is an easy-to-learn, feasible and radiation-free method, it may add substantial value to the commonly used diagnostic and risk stratification models.