Key result
ESC 2016, H2FPEF, and HFA-PEFF algorithms detect highly discordant HFpEF subpopulations with minimal overlap.
Why the study?
Do the ESC 2016, H2FPEF, and HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithms identify the same subpopulations of patients with HFpEF in the general population?
Observational
Do the ESC 2016, H2FPEF, and HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithms identify the same subpopulations of patients with HFpEF in the general population?
The ESC 2016, H2FPEF, and HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithms for HFpEF identify discordant subpopulations, highlighting the need for further classification of the syndrome.
Discordant HFpEF diagnoses across algorithms warrant diagnostic caution; leaves open need for unified validation in breathless patients.
AIMS: FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores to a middle-aged sample of the general population and compared the different groups with each other. METHODS AND RESULTS: FPEF score. The overlap of subjects diagnosed with HFpEF according to the different algorithms was very limited. CONCLUSIONS: FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores detect different, discordant subpopulations of probands with breathlessness. Further classification of the HFpEF syndrome is desirable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nikorowitsch et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF). ESC 2016, H2FPEF, and HFA-PEFF Diagnostic Algorithms vs. Each other was evaluated on Overlap of subjects diagnosed with HFpEF according to different algorithms. The ESC 2016, H2FPEF, and HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithms for HFpEF detect different, discordant subpopulations with very limited overlap among probands with breathlessness.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: