Key result
The HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scoring systems showed low concordance for diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (Kendall's taub 0.242, P<0.001), with high probability rates of 40% vs 26%.
Why the study?
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction poses significant diagnostic challenges, and this study aimed to assess the concordance and clinical accuracy of the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scoring systems in the APOLLON cohort.
What is the concordance between the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scoring systems in diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction?
Cross-Sectional (n=819)
Yes
What is the concordance between the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scoring systems in diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction?
Effect estimate: Kendall's taub 0.242
Absolute Event Rate: 40% vs 26%
p-value: p=< .001
There is low concordance between the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scoring systems for diagnosing HFpEF, highlighting the complexity of the diagnosis and the need to use these scores in conjunction with other clinical findings.
Supports cautious use of either HFpEF score in practice; leaves open need for standardized diagnostic criteria.
BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is a complex and heterogeneous clinical syndrome, poses significant diagnostic challenges. The HFA-PEFF [Heart Failure Association of ESC diagnostic algorithm, P (Pretest Assessment), E (Echocardiographic and Natriuretic Peptide score), F1 (Functional testing in Case of Uncertainty), F2 (Final Aetiology)] and H2FPEF [Heavy (BMI>30 kg/m2), Hypertensive (use of ≥2 antihypertensive medications), atrial Fibrillation (paroxysmal or persistent), Pulmonary hypertension (Doppler Echocardiographic estimated Pulmonary Artery Systolic Pressure >35 mm Hg), Elderly (age >60 years), Filling pressure (Doppler Echocardiographic E/e' >9)] scoring systems were developed to aid in diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. This study aimed to assess the concordance and clinical accuracy of these scoring systems in the 'A comPrehensive, ObservationaL registry of heart faiLure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fractiON' cohort. METHODS: A comPrehensive, ObservationaL registry of heart faiLure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fractiON study was conducted as a multicenter, cross-sectional, and observational study; to evaluate a group of Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients who were seen by cardiologists in 13 participating centers across 12 cities in Türkiye. RESULTS: The study enrolled 819 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, with high probability heart failure with preserved ejection fraction rates of 40% and 26% for HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scorings, respectively. The concordance between the 2 scoring systems was found to be low (Kendall's taub correlation coefficient of 0.242, P < .001). The diagnostic performance of both scoring systems was evaluated, revealing differences in their approach and ability to accurately identify heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients. CONCLUSION: The low concordance between the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scoring systems underscores the ongoing challenge of accurately diagnosing and managing patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Clinicians should be aware of the strengths and limitations of each scoring system and use them in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings to arrive at an accurate diagnosis. Future research should focus on identifying additional diagnostic factors, developing more accurate and comprehensive diagnostic algorithms, and investigating alternative methods of diagnosis or stratification of patients based on different clinical characteristics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gurbet Özge Mert (2023) conducted a cross-sectional in Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (n=819). HFA-PEFF scoring system vs. H2FPEF scoring system was evaluated on Concordance between the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scoring systems (Kendall's taub 0.242, p=< .001). The HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scoring systems showed low concordance for diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (Kendall's taub 0.242, P<0.001), with high probability rates of 40% vs 26%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: