[Applicability of H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF Scores in Chinese Patients Suffering From Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Complicated With Atrial Fibrillation].

Objective To analyze the diagnostic values of H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HFpEF complicated with atrial fibrillation (HFpEF-AF) in Chinese patients and explore the related factors. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted.A total of 835 consecutive HFpEF patients treated in the Department of Geriatric Cardiology,the First Hospital of Lanzhou University from 2009 to 2020 were selected and assigned to a HFpEF-AF group (n=267) and a HFpEF group (n=568) according to the presence of AF or not.HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores were used for retrospective diagnosis and the diagnostic consistency of the two scores was assessed.One hundred and thirty-six healthy volunteers with age and sex matching the patients during the same period were selected as healthy controls.The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were established for H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores in diagnosing HFpEF-AF and HFpEF,on the basis of which the diagnostic performance of the two scores was evaluated. Results There was no difference in the HFA-PEFF score between the two groups (P=0.070).However,the HFpEF-AF group had higher mean H2FPEF score and higher proportion of patients with the score no less than 6 than the HFpEF group (P<0.001).According to the ROC curves,HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores demonstrated high performance in diagnosing all HFpEF patients,with the area under the curve (AUC) of 0.892 and 0.922 and the optimal cut-offs of 4 and 4,respectively.The HFA-PEFF score showed similar performance in diagnosing HFpEF and HFpEF-AF,with the AUC of 0.899 and 0.911,respectively.The H2FPEF score had higher performance in diagnosing HFpEF-AF (AUC of approximately 1.000) and low performance in diagnosing HFpEF (AUC of 0.885). Conclusions The HFA-PEFF score is applicable in the diagnosis of both HFpEF and HFpEF-AF.The H2FPEF score may underestimate HFpEF in Chinese patients,and its applicability in the Chinese patients with HFpEF alone remains to be investigated.

Combination of SVI/S' and diagnostic scores for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

The diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a challenge. There are three methods proposed as diagnostic tools. H2 FPEF score was determined by six weighted clinical characteristics and echocardiographic variables. Heart Failure Association (HFA)-PEFF algorithm consists of various functional and morphological variables as well as natriuretic peptides. SVI/S' is a novel echocardiographic parameter calculated by stroke volume index and mitral annulus systolic peak velocity. This study aimed to compare the three approaches in patients with suspected HFpEF. Patients referred to right heart catheterization for suspected HFpEF were classified into low-, intermediate- and high-likelihood groups according to H2 FPEF or HFA-PEFF scores. A diagnosis of HFpEF was confirmed by pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) of ≥15 mm Hg according to the guidelines. In result, a total of 128 patients were included. Of these, 71 patients with PCWP ≥15 mm Hg and 57 patients with PCWP <15 mm Hg. Moderate correlations were observed between H2 FPEF score, HFA-PEFF score, SVI/S' and PCWP. The area under curve of SVI/S' was 0.82 for diagnosis of HFpEF, compared with 0.67 for H2 FPEF score and 0.75 for HFA-PEFF score by receiver-operating characteristics analysis. Combining SVI/S' with diagnostic scores showed higher Youden index and accuracy than each score alone. Kaplan-Meier analysis reported that the high-likelihood group showed poorer outcomes regardless the method used for diagnosis. Among the contemporary tools for identifying HFpEF in this study, the combination of SVI/S' with risk scores showed best diagnostic ability. Each of the strategies can determine rehospitalisation because of heart failure.

The relationship of skin autofluorescence with diastolic function and HFA-PEFF score in a general population of older people.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Advanced glycation end-products accumulation in tissue as measured by Skin autofluorescence (SAF) is related to diastolic function in specific patient populations. This analysis aims at investigating this relationship in a general population of older persons. METHODS AND RESULTS: Based on data from the CARLA cohort at first follow-up, 245 subjects were analyzed and stratified according to cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF). We used linear regression to investigate the association between diastolic function evaluated by echocardiography, HFA-PEFF score, and SAF. Univariable regression analysis showed an association of SAF with septal-E/e' (standardised beta = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.51-1.71) and A (3.42, 95% CI = 0.72-6.12), the former persisting after adjustment for age, sex and CVRF (0.67, 95% CI = 0.05-1.28). Septal-E/e' remained related to SAF only in the high cardiovascular risk stratum (1.16, 95% CI = 0.26-2.06). SAF was related to HFA-PEFF score (0.27, 95% CI = 0.10-0.43) but not after correcting for age and sex (0.16, 95% CI = 0.00-0.32) and CVRF and glomerular filtration rate (0.12, 95% CI = -0.07 - 0.27). SAF was related to the HFA-PEFF score only for participants with high cardiovascular risk (0.23, 95% CI = 0.02-0.45). CONCLUSION: In a general community-dwelling older population, SAF is related to diastolic function as measured by septal-E/e'. Further research is necessary to assess if SAF is a potential screening tool for diastolic dysfunction in advanced age.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in humans and mice: embracing clinical complexity in mouse models.

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a multifactorial disease accounting for a large and increasing proportion of all clinical HF presentations. As a clinical syndrome, HFpEF is characterized by typical signs and symptoms of HF, a distinct cardiac phenotype and raised natriuretic peptides. Non-cardiac comorbidities frequently co-exist and contribute to the pathophysiology of HFpEF. To date, no therapy has proven to improve outcomes in HFpEF, with drug development hampered, at least partly, by lack of consensus on appropriate standards for pre-clinical HFpEF models. Recently, two clinical algorithms (HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores) have been developed to improve and standardize the diagnosis of HFpEF. In this review, we evaluate the translational utility of HFpEF mouse models in the context of these HFpEF scores. We systematically recorded evidence of symptoms and signs of HF or clinical HFpEF features and included several cardiac and extra-cardiac parameters as well as age and sex for each HFpEF mouse model. We found that most of the pre-clinical HFpEF models do not meet the HFpEF clinical criteria, although some multifactorial models resemble human HFpEF to a reasonable extent. We therefore conclude that to optimize the translational value of mouse models to human HFpEF, a novel approach for the development of pre-clinical HFpEF models is needed, taking into account the complex HFpEF pathophysiology in humans.

Generalizability of HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF Diagnostic Algorithms and Associations With Heart Failure Indices and Proteomic Biomarkers: Insights From PROMIS-HFpEF.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains challenging. We aimed to evaluate the generalizability of the HFA-PEFF (Heart Failure Association Pre-test assessment, Echocardiography & natriuretic peptide, Functional testing, Final etiology) and weighted H2FPEF (Heavy, 2 or more Hypertensive drugs, atrial Fibrillation, Pulmonary hypertension, Elder age > 60, elevated Filling pressures) diagnostic algorithms and associations with HF severity, coronary microvascular dysfunction and proteomic biomarkers. METHODS AND RESULTS: Diagnostic likelihood of HFpEF was calculated in the prospective, multinational PROMIS-HFpEF (Prevalence of microvascular dysfunction in HFpEF) cohort using current European Society of Cardiology recommendations, HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF algorithms. Associations between the 2 algorithms and left atrial function, Doppler-based coronary flow reserve, 6-minute walk test, quality of life, and proteomic biomarkers were investigated. Of 181 patients with an EF of ≥50%, 129 (71%) and 94 (52%) fulfilled criteria for high likelihood HFpEF as per HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF, and 28% and 46% were classified as intermediate likelihood, requiring additional hemodynamic testing. High likelihood HFpEF patients were older with higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation and lower global longitudinal strain and left atrial reservoir strain (P < .001 for all variables). left atrial reservoir strain and global longitudinal strain were inversely associated with both HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores (TauB = -0.35 and -0.46 and -0.21 and -0.31; P < .001 for all). There were no associations between scoring and 6-minute walk test, quality of life, and coronary flow reserve. Both scores were associated with biomarkers related to inflammation, oxidative stress, and fibrosis. CONCLUSIONS: Although the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores were associated with measures of HF severity and biomarkers related to HFpEF, they demonstrated a modest and differential ability to identify HFpEF noninvasively, necessitating additional functional testing to confirm the diagnosis.

Diagnostic and prognostic value of the HFA-PEFF score for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aim: To assess the diagnostic and prognostic performances of the Heart Failure Association Pre-test Assessment, Echocardiography & Natriuretic Peptide, Functional Testing, Final Etiology (HFA-PEFF) score for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a comprehensive manner. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched from the inception to June 12, 2023. Studies using the "Rule-out" or "Rule-in" approach for diagnosis analysis or studies on cardiovascular events and all-cause death for prognosis analysis were included. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was adopted to assess the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. The sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve (AUC) were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For CVEs and all-cause death, the hazard ratio (HR) values were calculated. Results: Fifteen studies involving 6420 subjects were included, with 9 for diagnosis analysis, and 7 for prognosis analysis. For the diagnostic performance of the HFA-PEFF score, with the "Rule-out" approach, the pooled SEN was 0.96 (95%CI: 0.94, 0.97), the pooled SPE was 0.39 (95%CI: 0.37, 0.42), and the pooled AUC was 0.85 (95%CI: 0.67, 1.00), and with the "Rule-in" approach, the pooled SEN was 0.59 (95%CI: 0.56, 0.61), the pooled SPE was 0.86 (95%CI: 0.84, 0.88), and the pooled AUC was 0.83 (95%CI: 0.79, 0.87). For the predictive performance of the HFA-PEFF score, regarding CVEs, the pooled SEN was 0.63 (95%CI: 0.58, 0.67), the pooled SPE was 0.53 (95%CI: 0.49, 0.58), and the pooled AUC was 0.65 (95%CI: 0.40, 0.90), and concerning All-cause death, the pooled SEN was 0.85 (95%CI: 0.81, 0.88), the pooled SPE was 0.48 (95%CI: 0.44, 0.52), and the pooled AUC was 0.65 (95%CI: 0.47, 0.83). A higher HFA-PEFF score was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death (HR 1.390, 95%CI 1.240, 1.558, P < 0.001). Conclusion: The HFA-PEFF score might be applied in HFpEF diagnosis and all-cause death prediction. More studies are required for finding validation.

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

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 H2FPEF 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 H2FPEF 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 H2FPEF 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 H2FPEF 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 H2FPEF 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 H2FPEF score. The H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores showed only modest predictive values of the positive DSE and had a diagnostic power to rule out the HFpEF.

Association between postprocedural echocardiographic and laboratory data and clinical outcomes in patients with preserved ejection fraction after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The HFA-PEFF score comprising echocardiographic and laboratory data is designed to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and holds prognostic value in patients who underwent catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the incorporation of many variables into this score limits its practical use. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and to validate a simplified score (AF-HFA-PEFF score) focusing on AF-related parameters to predict cardiovascular events and AF recurrence. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 354 patients with preserved ejection fraction who underwent AF ablation. Using Cox regression hazard ratios from the HFA-PEFF score variables, we generated a risk score from a random 50% of patients and validated it with the other half. RESULTS: Univariate analysis revealed that postprocedural E/e', tricuspid regurgitation peak gradient, left atrial volume index, and brain natriuretic peptide levels were associated with 3-year cardiovascular events or AF recurrence. We developed the AF-HFA-PEFF score incorporating these factors. In the derivation group, C statistics for cardiovascular events were 0.72 for the AF-HFA-PEFF score and 0.74 for the original HFA-PEFF score and 0.71 and 0.69 for AF recurrence, respectively. Validation demonstrated that patients with an AF-HFA-PEFF score <4 had a 3-year cardiovascular event risk of 1.4% vs 9.4% for scores ≥4 (P < .001). For AF recurrence, these figures were 9.7% and 65.6%, respectively (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The AF-HFA-PEFF score is simpler than the HFA-PEFF score and is equally associated with 3-year cardiovascular events and AF recurrence.

Heart Failure score and outcomes in patients with preserved ejection fraction after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequently associated with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but the diagnosis and prediction of the outcomes of HFpEF are difficult. Notably, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology proposed the use of the HFA-PEFF score in the diagnosis of HFpEF. This study aimed to assess the prognostic value of the pre- and post-procedural HFA-PEFF scores in patients with preserved ejection fraction (EF) after catheter ablation (CA) for AF. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac hospitalization for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoint was AF recurrence. METHODS AND RESULTS: Overall, 354 patients with AF and preserved EF who underwent CA as well as blood tests and transthoracic echocardiography 2 weeks before and 6 months after CA from January 2018 to December 2019 were retrospectively enrolled in the study. In the 354 participants, univariate analysis showed that the post-procedural HFA-PEFF score was associated with a 3-year risk of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.07-6.73; P < 0.001), whereas the pre-procedural HFA-PEFF score was not (HR = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.82-1.86, P = 0.307). Further, the association between the post-procedural HFA-PEFF score and primary endpoint was not modified even after including other relevant variables into the score. Similar to the primary endpoint, the post-procedural HFA-PEFF score was associated with the 3-year risk of AF recurrence (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with preserved EF undergoing AF ablation, the HFA-PEFF score at 6 months after CA was associated with the primary endpoint and AF recurrence at the 3-year follow-up.

Validation of heart failure algorithm for diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a meta-analysis.

The aim of the meta-analysis was to generate a more comprehensive understanding of the HFA-PEFF score in the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and to pose clues in the field of scientific and clinical practice. Electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase were systematically searched. Studies investigating the use of the HFA-PEFF score to diagnose HFpEF were included. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative Likelihood Ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under the curve of summary receiver operating characteristic, and superiority index were calculated. Five studies with 1521 participants were included in this meta-analysis. In the pooled analysis of the 'Rule-out' approach, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.98 (0.94, 1.00), 0.33 (0.08, 0.73), 1.5 (0.8, 2.5), 0.05 (0.02, 0.17), and 28 (6, 127). In the pooled analysis of the 'Rule-in' approach, the pooled sensitivity and specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.69 (0.62, 0.75), 0.87 (0.64, 0.96), 5.5 (1.8, 16.9), 0.35 (0.30, 0.41), and 16 (5, 50). This meta-analysis indicates that the HFA-PEFF algorithm showed acceptable specificity and sensitivity for the diagnosis and exclusion of HFpEF. More relevant studies on the diagnostic validity of the HFA-PEFF score are needed in the future.

Haemodynamic validation of the three-step HFA-PEFF algorithm to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: The HFA-PEFF algorithm (Heart Failure Association-Pre-test assessment, Echocardiography and natriuretic peptide score, Functional testing in cases of uncertainty, Final aetiology) is a three-step algorithm to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). It provides a three-level likelihood of HFpEF: low (score < 2), intermediate (score 2-4), or high (score > 4). HFpEF may be confirmed in individuals with a score > 4 (rule-in approach). The second step of the algorithm is based on echocardiographic features and natriuretic peptide levels. The third step implements diastolic stress echocardiography (DSE) for controversial diagnostic cases. We sought to validate the three-step HFA-PEFF algorithm against a haemodynamic diagnosis of HFpEF based on rest and exercise right heart catheterization (RHC). METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy-three individuals with exertional dyspnoea underwent a full diagnostic work-up following the HFA-PEFF algorithm, including DSE and rest/exercise RHC. The association between the HFA-PEFF score and a haemodynamic diagnosis of HFpEF, as well as the diagnostic performance of the HFA-PEFF algorithm vs. RHC, was assessed. The diagnostic performance of left atrial (LA) strain < 24.5% and LA strain/E/E' < 3% was also assessed. The probability of HFpEF was low/intermediate/high in 8%/52%/40% of individuals at the second step of the HFA-PEFF algorithm and 8%/49%/43% at the third step. After RHC, 89% of patients were diagnosed as HFpEF and 11% as non-cardiac dyspnoea. The HFA-PEFF score resulted associated with the invasive haemodynamic diagnosis of HFpEF (P < 0.001). Sensitivity and specificity of the HFA-PEFF score for the invasive haemodynamic diagnosis of HFpEF were 45% and 100% for the second step of the algorithm and 46% and 88% for the third step of the algorithm. Neither age, sex, body mass index, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or paroxysmal atrial fibrillation influenced the performance of the HFA-PEFF algorithm, as these characteristics were similarly distributed over the true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative cases. Sensitivity of the second step of the HFA-PEFF score was non-significantly improved to 60% (P = 0.08) by lowering the rule-in threshold to >3. LA strain alone had a sensitivity and specificity of 39% and 14% for haemodynamic HFpEF, increasing to 55% and 22% when corrected for E/E'. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with rest/exercise RHC, the HFA-PEFF score lacks sensitivity: Half of the patients were wrongly classified as non-cardiac dyspnoea after non-invasive tests, with a minimal impact of DSE in modifying HFpEF likelihood.

Evaluation of large animal models for preclinical studies of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction using clinical score systems.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is characterized by a complex, heterogeneous spectrum of pathologic features combined with average left ventricular volume and diastolic dysfunction. HFpEF is a significant public health problem associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Currently, effective treatments for HFpEF represent the greatest unmet need in cardiovascular medicine. A lack of an efficient preclinical model has hampered the development of new devices and medications for HFpEF. Because large animal models have similar physiologic traits as humans and appropriate organ sizes, they are the best option for limiting practical constraints. HFpEF is a highly integrated, multiorgan, systemic disorder requiring a multipronged investigative approach. Here, we review the large animal models of HFpEF reported to date and describe the methods that have been used to create HFpEF, including surgery-induced pressure overloading, medicine-induced pressure overloading, and diet-induced metabolic syndrome. In addition, for the first time to our knowledge, we use two established clinical HFpEF algorithms (HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores) to evaluate the currently available large animal models. We also discuss new technologies, such as continuous remote pressure monitors and inflatable aortic cuffs, as well as how the models could be improved. Based on current progress and our own experience, we believe an efficient large animal model of HFpEF should simultaneously encompass multiple pathophysiologic factors, along with multiorgan dysfunction. This could be fully evaluated through available methods (imaging, blood work). Although many models have been studied, only a few studies completely meet clinical score standards. Therefore, it is critical to address the deficiencies of each model and incorporate novel techniques to establish a more reliable model, which will help facilitate the understanding of HFpEF mechanisms and the development of a treatment.

The prognostic value of cardiopulmonary exercise testing and HFA-PEFF in patients with unexplained dyspnea and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: HFA-PEFF and cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) are comprehensive diagnostic tools for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We aimed to investigate the incremental prognostic value of CPET for the HFA-PEFF score among patients with unexplained dyspnea with preserved ejection fraction (EF). METHODS: Consecutive patients with dyspnea and preserved EF (n = 292) were enrolled between August 2019 and July 2021. All patients underwent CPET and comprehensive echocardiography, including two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography in the left ventricle, left atrium and right ventricle. The primary outcome was defined as a composite cardiovascular event including cardiovascular-related mortality, acute recurrent heart failure hospitalization, urgent repeat revascularization/myocardial infarction or any hospitalization due to cardiovascular events. RESULTS: The mean age was 58 ± 14.5 years, and 166 (56.8%) participants were male. The study population was divided into three groups based on the HFA-PEFF score: < 2 (n = 81), 2-4 (n = 159), and ≥ 5 (n = 52). HFA-PEFF score ≥ 5, VE/VCO2 slope, peak systolic strain rate of the left atrium and resting diastolic blood pressure were independently associated with composite cardiovascular events. Furthermore, the addition of VE/VCO2 and HFA-PEFF to the base model showed incremental prognostic value for predicting composite cardiovascular events (C-statistic 0.898; integrated discrimination improvement 0.129, p = 0.032; net reclassification improvement 1.043, p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CPET could be exploited for the HFA-PEFF approach in terms of incremental prognostic value and diagnosis among patients with unexplained dyspnea with preserved EF.

Evaluation the value of H2FPEF score and HFA-PEFF step E score in the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Clinical diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains challenging. The aim of the study is to evaluate the value of the H2FPEF score and HFA-PEFF step E score in the diagnosis of HFpEF. METHODS: 319 hospitalised patients with 'shortness of breath' or 'dyspnoea' were retrospectively collected and scored with the above two scores, respectively. They were divided into HFpEF group and non-HFpEF group in the study. RESULTS: Both the negative and positive predictive value of H2FPEF score and HFA-PEFF Step E score were 95.52%, 96.83% and 98.28%, 93.63%, respectively. However, there were 189 (59.25%) and 104 (32.60%) cases could not be diagnosed or excluded in the H2FPEF score and the HFA-PEFF step E score, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both scores of the H2FPEF and the HFA-PEFF step E may be used to effectively rule out or confirm HFpEF according to the score point. However, there are three fifths and one third patients in the H2FPEF score and the HFA-PEFF step E score, respectively, in the intermediate scores who are needed further invasive catheterisation or exercise stress tests.

Value of the HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithms for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction to the inflammatory myopathy population.

OBJECTIVES: The HFA-PEFF score has been validated to hold great diagnostic and prognostic utility for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) is recognized as one of the potential etiologies underlying HFpEF. Here, we intended to investigate the real prevalence of HFpEF in IIM via the HFA-PEFF score and explore the prognostic value of this score. METHODS: Two hundred twenty IIM patients were enrolled for assessment. The cohort was divided into low, intermediate and high tertiles of the HFA-PEFF score. Spearman's correlation analysis was used to explore the association between the score and disease activity. Chi-square test was applied to investigate the distribution discrepancy of HFA-PEFF tertiles among patients with different myositis-specific antibodies (MSAs) or myositis-associated antibodies (MAAs). Univariate and multivariate ordinal regression analyses were performed to screen risk factors for high HFA-PEFF scores. Survival curves were obtained using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests. RESULTS: In total, 79 (35.9%), 107 (48.6%) and 34 (15.5%) patients were rated low, intermediate and high probability of HFpEF, respectively. The HFA-PEFF score correlated well with disease activity. Patients with positive AMA-M2 scored higher in the HFA-PEFF score (p = 0.011). During follow-up, patients with positive AMA-M2 or anti-SRP antibody developed an inclination towards concentric hypertrophy on echocardiography. Additionally, palpitation symptom, AMA-M2 positivity and elevated serum levels of LDH, cTnI were independent risk factors for high HFA-PEFF scores. Finally, a high-tertile HFA-PEFF score was related to lower overall survival rate (p < 0.001). Patients with positive AMA-M2 had poorer outcomes (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: HFpEF was prevailing in IIM patients according to the HFA-PEFF score. The HFA-PEFF score correlated well with disease activity and held significant prognostic value. Patients with AMA-M2 antibody were prone to have poor outcomes.

Relative importance of left atrial reservoir strain compared with components of the HFA-PEFF score: a cross-sectional study.

Background: The 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. Methods: Between 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. Results: The 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. Conclusions: LASr is an important factor with components of the HFA-PEFF score and is a useful tool to assess patients with HFpEF. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.org. Unique identifiers: NCT05638230.

Discriminative Role of Invasive Left Heart Catheterization in Patients Suspected of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Background Recently, diastolic stress testing and invasive hemodynamic measurements have been emphasized for diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) because when determined using noninvasive parameters it can fall into a nondiagnostic intermediate range. The current study evaluated the discriminative and prognostic roles of invasive measured left ventricular end-diastolic pressure in the population with suspected HFpEF, particularly for patients with intermediate Heart Failure Association Pre-test Assessment, Echocardiography & Natriuretic Peptide, Functional Testing, Final Etiology (HFA-PEFF) score. Methods and Results A total of 404 patients with symptoms or signs of HF and preserved left ventricular systolic function were enrolled. All subjects underwent left heart catheterization with left ventricular end-diastolic pressure measurement for confirmation of HFpEF (≥16 mm Hg). The primary outcome was all-cause death or readmission due to HF within 10 years. Among the study population, 324 patients (80.2%) were diagnosed as invasively confirmed HFpEF, and 80 patients (19.8%) were as noncardiac dyspnea. The patients with HFpEF showed a significantly higher HFA-PEFF score than the patients with noncardiac dyspnea (3.8±1.8 versus 2.6±1.5, P<0.001). The discriminative ability of the HFA-PEFF score for diagnosing HFpEF was modest (area under the curve, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.64-0.75], P<0.001). The HFA-PEFF score was associated with a significantly higher 10-year risk of death or HF readmission (per-1 increase, hazard ratio [HR], 1.603 [95% CI, 1.376-1.868], P<0.001). Among the 226 patients with an intermediate HFA-PEFF score (2-4), those with invasively confirmed HFpEF had a significantly higher risk of death or HF readmission within 10 years than the patients with noncardiac dyspnea (24.0% versus 6.9%, HR, 3.327 [95% CI, 1.109-16.280], P=0.030). Conclusions The HFA-PEFF score is a moderately useful tool for predicting future adverse events in suspected HFpEF, and invasively measured left ventricular end-diastolic pressure can provide additional information to discriminate patient prognosis, particularly in those with intermediate HFA-PEFF scores. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04505449.

Prognostic Value of HFA-PEFF Score in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Background The HFA-PEFF score may help in predicting long-term outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF). Methods We retrieved data from 1,332 patients undergoing TAVI between 2010 and 2019 from the Prospective Segeberg TAVI Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03192774). We calculated the HFA-PEFF score for 1,022 patients who had preserved EF (≥50%). To assess the prognostic value of the HFA-PEFF score in predicting adverse events, we dichotomised the patients according to a cut-off score of five (score <5 group: n=528 (51.6%), score ≥5 group: n=494 (48.3%)). Results The HFA-PEFF score ≥5 groups were older (81.9±6.3 years vs. 80.3±6.9 years; p<0.001) and had a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation (35.1% vs 20.8%; p<0.001) and chronic kidney disease (30.1% vs 26.1%; p<0.001). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses over 24 months showed increased cardiovascular (CV) mortality (12.5% vs. 7.7%, log-rank; p=0.028) and first heart failure-related rehospitalisation (7.7% vs. 4.0%, log-rank p=0.014) in the HFA-PEFF score ≥5 groups compared with those of lower scores. No significant difference in all-cause mortality between both groups was observed (22.0% vs. 17.9%, log-rank p=0.127). In multivariate analysis, HFA-PEFF score ≥5 failed to predict CV mortality (aHR 1.37, 95% CI: 0.90-2.08, p=0.140) and time to first heart failure-related rehospitalisation (aHR 1.49, 95% CI: 0.83-2.65, p=0.181). Conclusion The HFA-PEFF score showed limited value in predicting long-term mortality and adverse heart failure-related events in patients with preserved EF undergoing TAVI. Clinical variables specific to this population could complement the HFA-PEFF score for better risk prediction.

The HFA-PEFF score identifies 'early-HFpEF' phenogroups associated with distinct biomarker profiles.

AIMS: The HFA-PEFF score was developed to optimize diagnosis and to aid in early recognition of heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in patients who present with HF-like symptoms. Recognizing early-HFpEF phenogroups is essential to better understand progression towards overt HFpEF and pave the way for early intervention and treatment. Whether the HFA-PEFF domain scores can identify 'early-HFpEF' phenogroups remains unknown. The aims of this pilot study are to (i) identify distinct phenogroups by cluster analysis of HFA-PEFF domain scores in subjects that present with HF-like symptoms and (ii) study whether these phenogroups may be associated with distinct blood proteome profiles. METHODS AND RESULTS: Subjects referred to the Cardiology Centers of the Netherlands, location Utrecht, with non-acute possibly cardiac-related symptoms (such as dyspnoea or fatigue) were prospectively enrolled in the HELPFul cohort (N = 507) and were included in the current analysis. Inclusion criteria for this study were (i) age ≥ 45 years and (ii) a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 50%, in the absence of a history of HF, coronary artery disease, congenital heart disease, or any previous cardiac interventions. Multinominal-based clustering with latent class model using the HFA-PEFF domain scores (functional, structural, and biomarker scores) as input was used to detect distinct phenotypic clusters. For each bootstrapping run, the 92 Olink proteins were analysed for their association with the identified phenogroups. Four distinct phenogroups were identified in the current analysis (validated by bootstrapping 1000×): (i) no left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (no LVDD, N = 102); (ii) LVDD with functional left ventricular (LV) abnormalities (N = 204); (iii) LVDD with functional and structural LV abnormalities (N = 204); and (iv) LVDD with functional and structural LV abnormalities and elevated BNP (N = 107). The HFA-PEFF total score risk categories significantly differed between the phenogroups (P < 0.001), with an increase of the HFA-PEFF score from Phenogroup 1 to 4 (low/intermediate/high HFA-PEFF risk score: Phenogroup 1: 88%/12%/0%; Phenogroup 2: 9%/91%/0%; Phenogroup 3: 0%/92%/8%; Phenogroup 4: 5%/83%/12%). Thirty-two out of the 92 Olink protein biomarkers significantly differed among the phenogroups. The top eight biomarkers-N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, growth differentiation factor-15, matrix metalloproteinase-2, osteoprotegerin, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-4, chitinase-3-like protein 1, insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 2, and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7-are mainly involved in inflammation and extracellular matrix remodelling, which are currently proposed key processes in HFpEF pathophysiology. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified distinct phenogroups by using the HFA-PEFF domain scores in ambulant subjects referred for HF-like symptoms. The newly identified phenogroups accompanied by their circulating biomarkers profile might aid in a better understanding of the pathophysiological processes involved during the early stages of the HFpEF syndrome.

Evaluation of the HFA-PEFF Score: results from the prospective DIAST-CHF cohort.

AIMS: Although the number of patients suffering from heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) increases, the routine diagnosis remains a challenge. In the absence of a pathognomonic sign for HFpEF or specific treatment strategies, a prognosis-based characterization of suspected patients remains promising for both the risk stratification of the patients and a disease definition. The Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology has introduced an algorithm with different levels of likelihood regarding the diagnosis of HFpEF, the HFA-PEFF score. We aimed to evaluate the predictive value of this algorithm in a large cohort regarding mortality, symptom burden, and the functional status. METHODS AND RESULTS: DIAST-CHF is a multicentre, population-based, prospective, observational study in subjects with at least one risk factor for HFpEF between the age of 50 and 85. We calculated the HFA-PEFF score (n = 1668) and analysed the risk groups for overall mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, and submaximal functional capacity (6-min walk distance) at baseline and after a follow-up period of 10 years. Patients with high HFA-PEFF score values 5&6 showed a higher mortality than those with an intermediate score (score values 2-4) and low score values (high 21.3% vs. intermediate 10.1% vs. low 4.3%, P < 0.001). Also, the burden of MACE (death, cardiovascular hospitalization, new myocardial infarction, first diagnosis of HF) was increased in the high score values group (high 40.7% vs. intermediate 25.9% vs. low 13.9%, P < 0.001). Similarly, patients with higher scores had higher cumulative incidences of cardiovascular hospitalizations (P = 0.011). Subjects with higher scores also had lower 6-min walk distance both at baseline and during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The HFA-PEFF score provides a reliable instrument to stratify suspected HFpEF patients by their risk for mortality, symptom burden, and functional status in cohort at risk with a follow-up period of 10 years. As high HFA-PEFF scores are associated with worse outcome, the HFA-PEFF algorithm describes a defining approach towards HFpEF.