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

Prognostic value of the HFA-PEFF and H(2) FPEF scores for clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease and preserved ejection fraction

Background

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a significant risk factor for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). While the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scoring systems were developed to aid in the diagnosis of HFpEF, their predictive performance in patients with CAD remains underexplored.

Methods

This single-center retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent drug-eluting stent implantation between January 2018 and October 2022. The study's primary endpoint was a composite outcome of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization during follow-up. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to evaluate time to adverse events, and differences between groups were analyzed using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression was applied to assess the independent predictive value of the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores for adverse outcomes.

Results

The HFA-PEFF score categorized 65.7 % of patients as intermediate, 25.1 % as high, and 9.2 % as low probability for HFpEF. The H2FPEF score placed 77.3 % in the intermediate group, 19.3 % in the low, and 3.4 % in the high-probability group. The median follow-up period was 29 months. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression revealed the HFA-PEFF score was significantly associated with the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization (HR: 1.33, 95 % CI:1.07-1.65). Each point increase in the HFA-PEFF score raised heart failure hospitalization risk by 26 % (HR:1.26, 95 % CI: 1.05-1.51). In contrast, the H2FPEF score did not show a significant association with adverse events.

Conclusions

The HFA-PEFF score demonstrated superior prognostic value for predicting adverse outcomes in CAD patients with preserved ejection fraction compared to the H2FPEF score.

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

BACKGROUND

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).

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.

Device therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Device therapy is a nonpharmacological approach that presents a crucial advancement for managing patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This review investigated the impact of device-based interventions and emphasized their potential for optimizing treatment for this complex patient demographic. Cardiac resynchronization therapy, augmented by atrioventricular node ablation with His-bundle pacing or left bundle-branch pacing, is effective for enhancing cardiac function and establishing atrioventricular synchrony. Cardiac contractility modulation and vagus nerve stimulation represent novel strategies for increasing myocardial contractility and adjusting the autonomic balance. Left ventricular expanders have demonstrated short-term benefits in HFpEF patients but require more investigation for long-term effectiveness and safety, especially in patients with AF. Research gaps regarding complications arising from left ventricular expander implantation need to be addressed. Device-based therapies for heart valve diseases, such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement and transcatheter edge-to-edge repair, show promise for patients with AF and HFpEF, particularly those with mitral or tricuspid regurgitation. Clinical evaluations show that these device therapies lessen AF occurrence, improve exercise tolerance, and boost left ventricular diastolic function. However, additional studies are required to perfect patient selection criteria and ascertain the long-term effectiveness and safety of these interventions. Our review underscores the significant potential of device therapy for improving the outcomes and quality of life for patients with AF and HFpEF.

Prognostic value of left atrial reverse remodelling in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

OBJECTIVES

Left atrial reverse remodelling (LARR) reflects an improvement in the function or structure. However, it is unclear whether the presence of LARR is associated with better outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS

The study was a monocentric retrospective cohort one. Consecutive HFpEF patients admitted to the hospital between 1 January 2018 and 30 June 2020 were included. This cohort was divided into LARR and non-LARR groups based on the recovery of the left atrium. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality, rehospitalization for heart failure, and the composite of death or readmission. Significant predictors of LARR were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 409 patients were enrolled, including 90 cases in the LARR group and 319 in the non-LARR group. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that compared with the non-LARR group, the LARR group had a lower incidence of rehospitalization for heart failure and the composite of death or readmission but not all-cause mortality. Similar results were observed in a subgroup analysis of patients with and without atrial fibrillation. Cox regression analysis demonstrated that the non-LARR group experienced higher risks of heart failure-related readmission [hazard ratio: 1.785, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.236-3.215, P  = 0.037] and the composite outcome (hazard ratio: 1.684, 95% CI 1.254-2.865, P  = 0.044), but not all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 1.475, 95% CI: 0.481-3.527, P  = 0.577) compared with the LARR group after adjusting for significant confounders. Logistic regression analysis showed that mild mitral regurgitation and the use of loop diuretics were two positive predictors of LARR in patients with HFpEF.

CONCLUSION

LARR is an effective echocardiographic index that can be used to predict heart failure-related readmission in HFpEF. Therefore, regular assessment of left atrial size can provide a useful marker for risk stratification of heart failure.

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 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.

Efficacy of guideline-directed medical treatment in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) has received increasing attention following the publication of the latest ESC guidelines in 2021. However, it remains unclear whether patients with HFmrEF could benefit from guideline-directed medical treatment (GDMT), referring the combination of ACEI/ARB/ARNI, β-blockers, and MRAs, which are recommended for those with reduced ejection fraction. This study explored the efficacy of GDMT in HFmrEF patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of HFmrEF patients admitted to The First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between 1 September 2015 and 30 November 2019. Propensity score matching (1:2) between patients receiving triple-drug therapy (TT) and non-triple therapy (NTT) based on age and sex was performed. The primary outcome was all cause death, cardiac death, rehospitalization from any cause, and rehospitalization due to worsening heart failure.

RESULTS

Of the 906 patients enrolled in the matched cohort (TT group, n = 302; NTT group, N = 604), 653 (72.08%) were male, and mean age was 61.1 ± 11.92. Survival analysis suggested that TT group experienced a significantly lower incidence of prespecified primary endpoints than NTT group. Multivariable Cox regression showed that TT group had a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.656, 95% CI 0.447-0.961, P = 0.030), cardiac death (HR 0.599, 95% CI 0.380-0.946, P = 0.028), any-cause rehospitalization (HR 0.687, 95% CI 0.541-0.872, P = 0.002), and heart failure rehospitalization (HR 0.732, 95% CI 0.565-0.948, P = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HFmrEF, combined use of neurohormonal antagonists produces remarkable effects in reducing the occurrence of the primary outcome of rehospitalization and death. Thus, the treatment of HFmrEF should be categorized as HFrEF due to the similar benefit of neurohormonal blocking therapy in HFrEF and HFmrEF.

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.

Risk Prediction Models and Novel Prognostic Factors for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic and Comprehensive Review

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have large individual differences, unclear risk stratification, and imperfect treatment plans. Risk prediction models are helpful for the dynamic assessment of patients' prognostic risk and early intensive therapy of high-risk patients. The purpose of this study is to systematically summarize the existing risk prediction models and novel prognostic factors for HFpEF, to provide a reference for the construction of convenient and efficient HFpEF risk prediction models.

METHODS

Studies on risk prediction models and prognostic factors for HFpEF were systematically searched in relevant databases including PubMed and Embase. The retrieval time was from inception to February 1, 2023. The Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool was used to assess the risk of bias in included studies. The predictive value of risk prediction models for end outcomes was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, the area under the curve, C-statistic, C-index, etc. In the literature screening process, potential novel prognostic factors with high value were explored.

RESULTS

A total of 21 eligible HFpEF risk prediction models and 22 relevant studies were included. Except for 2 studies with a high risk of bias and 2 studies with a moderate risk of bias, other studies that proposed risk prediction models had a low risk of bias overall. Potential novel prognostic factors for HFpEF were classified and described in terms of demographic characteristics (age, sex, and race), lifestyle (physical activity, body mass index, weight change, and smoking history), laboratory tests (biomarkers), physical inspection (blood pressure, electrocardiogram, imaging examination), and comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

It is of great significance to explore the potential novel prognostic factors of HFpEF and build a more convenient and efficient risk prediction model for improving the overall prognosis of patients. This review can provide a substantial reference for further research.

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.

Genomic, Proteomic, and Metabolic Comparisons of Small Animal Models of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Tale of Mice, Rats, and Cats

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a medical anomaly that baffles researchers and physicians alike. The overall phenotypical changes of diastolic function and left ventricular hypertrophy observed in HFpEF are definable; however, the metabolic and molecular alterations that ultimately produce these changes are not well established. Comorbidities such as obesity, hypertension, and diabetes, as well as general aging, play crucial roles in its development and progression. Various animal models have recently been developed to better understand the pathophysiological and metabolic developments in HFpEF and to illuminate novel avenues for pharmacotherapy. These models include multi‐hit rodents and feline aortic constriction animals. Recently, genomic, proteomic, and metabolomic approaches have been used to define altered signaling pathways in the heart associated with HFpEF, including those involved in inflammation, cGMP‐related, Ca²⁺ handling, mitochondrial respiration, and the unfolded protein response in endoplasmic reticulum stress. This article aims to present an overview of what has been learnt by these studies, focusing mainly on the findings in common while highlighting unresolved issues. The knowledge gained from these research models will not simply be of benefit for treating HFpEF but will undoubtedly provide new insights into the mechanisms by which the heart deals with external stresses and how the processes involved can fail.

EAT Thickness as a Predominant Feature for Evaluating Arterial Stiffness in Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

OBJECTIVE

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is an intricacy heterogeneous syndrome. However, the association between EAT and arterial stiffness in HFpEF patients remains unknown.

METHODS

A total of 102 patients were enrolled into the study, and brachial-ankle pulse-wave velocity (baPWV), epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) and body composition were assessed. Linear regression analysis was carried out to model the relationship between variables (especially EAT thickness) and baPWV.

RESULTS

The results showed that patients with the thicker EAT fat pad (≥3.55 mm) tended to have comorbidities of hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD), diabetes and hyperlipidemia, also with a higher level of obesity, fasting blood glucose (FBG), glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), total cholesterol (TC) and triglyceride (TG). The level of baPWV was higher in EAT ≥3.55 mm group than the other group. BaPWV was positively associated with EAT, age, heart rate, waist circumference, visceral fat area, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, CRP and FBG. After adjusting for EAT, age and visceral fat area, EAT thickness (β = 0.256, P = 0.009) and visceral fat area (β = 0.229, P = 0.036) significantly associated with baPWV.

CONCLUSION

The study assessed for the first time that the increased EAT thickness was closely related with baPWV in HFpEF patients, suggesting patients with the thicker EAT may be independently associated with arterial stiffness under the context of HFpEF.