Key result
HFpEF-ABA score combining age, BMI, and AF effectively predicts prognosis in HFpEF.
Why the study?
The prognostic performance of the HFpEF-ABA score in distinct regional cohorts of HFpEF patients enrolled in the TOPCAT trial was uncertain.
Does the HFpEF-ABA score predict clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF across different geographic regions?
Cohort (n=3,400)
Yes
Does the HFpEF-ABA score predict clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF across different geographic regions?
The HFpEF-ABA score demonstrates substantial regional heterogeneity in prognostic utility, showing strong associations with adverse outcomes in the Russia/Georgia cohort but attenuated discrimination in the Americas cohort of the TOPCAT trial.
Simplifies risk stratification for HFpEF patients; extends evidence for simple, practical prognostic scores.
BACKGROUND: The HFpEF-ABA score, incorporating age, body mass index (BMI), and atrial fibrillation (AF), has demonstrated utility in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the prognostic performance of the HFpEF-ABA score within the Americas and Russia/Georgia cohorts of the TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist) trial, examining its association with clinical outcomes across these distinct regions. METHODS: Cox proportional hazards and competing risk regression analyses assessed associations between HFpEF-ABA probabilities and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Among the Americas cohort (n = 1,726), 72.7% exhibited an HFpEF-ABA probability ≥75%. Elevated HFpEF-ABA probabilities were modestly associated with an increased risk of HF hospitalization HR per 10% increase: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.00-1.14) and any hospitalization (HR per 10% increase: 1.04; 95% CI: 1.00-1.08), without significant associations with mortality or major cardiovascular events. In the Russia/Georgia cohort (n = 1,674), 39.8% had probability ≥75%. Higher HFpEF-ABA probabilities were significantly associated with increased risks of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.16-2.41), heart failure hospitalization (HR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.04-3.78), any hospitalization (HR: 1.75; 95% CI: 1.43-2.14,) and stroke (HR: 2.81; 95% CI: 1.44-5.5). A linear trend of escalating adverse outcome risks corresponded with increasing HFpEF-ABA probabilities in the Russia/Georgia cohort, excluding stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates substantial regional heterogeneity in the prognostic utility of the HFpEF-ABA score among patients with HFpEF enrolled in the TOPCAT trial. The score exhibited strong associations with adverse outcomes in the Russia/Georgia cohort, whereas its prognostic discrimination was attenuated in the Americas cohort. (Aldosterone Antagonist Therapy for Adults With Heart Failure and Preserved Systolic Function [TOPCAT]; NCT00094302).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhu et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (n=3,400). HFpEF-ABA score vs. Lower HFpEF-ABA probabilities was evaluated on Heart failure hospitalization (Americas cohort, per 10% increase) (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00-1.14). The HFpEF-ABA score showed strong prognostic utility for adverse outcomes in the Russia/Georgia cohort (all-cause mortality HR 1.67; 95% CI 1.16-2.41), but attenuated discrimination in the Americas.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: