Key result
Patients with HFpEF diagnosed by the ESC algorithm had similar overall outcomes to those with HFrEF, with a trend toward better survival for HF death (HR 1.63; 95% CI 0.95-2.80; P=0.08).
Why the study?
Does the application of the ESC consensus algorithm for HFpEF diagnosis identify patients with similar prognosis to those with HFrEF?
Population
491 consecutive patients admitted due to acute heart failure, mean age 78 years, 63% women.
Comparison
Diagnosis of HFpEF using the European Society of… vs Patients with HFrEF
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
6 months
Authors
Loading...
ESC-defined HFpEF associates with HFrEF-comparable outcomes; supports algorithm relevance but leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
Cohort (n=491)
Does the application of the ESC consensus algorithm for HFpEF diagnosis identify patients with similar prognosis to those with HFrEF?
Hazard Ratio: 1.63 (95% CI 0.95–2.8)
p-value: p=0.08
The use of objective ESC criteria for diagnosing HFpEF identifies a population with a similarly poor prognosis as those with HFrEF, validating the clinical relevance of the algorithm.
Almeida et al. (2012) conducted a cohort in Acute heart failure (n=491). Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) vs. Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) was evaluated on Heart failure death (HR 1.63, 95% CI 0.95-2.80, p=0.08). Patients with HFpEF diagnosed by the ESC algorithm had similar overall outcomes to those with HFrEF, with a trend toward better survival for HF death (HR 1.63; 95% CI 0.95-2.80; P=0.08).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: