Key result
HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores diagnose HFpEF with >99% sensitivity but fail to predict adverse events.
Why the study?
The generalizability and prognostic implications of the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scoring systems in trial and community-based HFpEF populations required comparison.
Do the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scoring systems accurately diagnose HFpEF and predict adverse cardiovascular events?
Observational (n=951)
Yes
Do the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scoring systems accurately diagnose HFpEF and predict adverse cardiovascular events?
Hazard Ratio: 1.26 (95% CI 0.98–1.63)
The HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores are reliable diagnostic tools for ruling in and ruling out HFpEF, though their prognostic utility requires further validation.
Supports diagnostic use of HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores in practice; leaves open their prognostic value pending further validation.
Aims We sought to compare the generalizability and prognostic implications of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) scores (HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF score) in Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) and Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibition to Improve Clinical Status and Exercise Capacity in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (RELAX) trial participants and matched controls from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Community (ARIC) study. Methods and results Based on the respective scores, the study participants from the TOPCAT (N = 356), RELAX (N = 216), and ARIC (N = 379) studies were categorized as having a low, intermediate, or high likelihood of HFpEF. Age, sex, and race matched controls free of cardiovascular disease who had unexplained dyspnoea were used to evaluate the diagnostic performance. The prognostic value of scores was assessed using multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analyses. The median HFA-PEFF scores in the TOPCAT, RELAX, and ARIC studies were 5.0 [interquartile range (IQR): 5.0–6.0], 4.0 (IQR: 2.0–4.0), and 3.0 (IQR: 2.0–4.0), respectively. The median H2FPEF scores in the three studies were 5.5 (IQR: 4.0–7.0), 6.0 (IQR: 4.0–7.0), and 3.0 (IQR: 2.0–5.0), respectively. A low HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF score can rule out HFpEF with high sensitivity (99.5% and 99.6%, respectively) and negative predictive value (95.7% and 98.3%, respectively). A high HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF score can rule-in HFpEF with good specificity (82.8% and 95.6%, respectively) and positive predictive value (79.9% and 90.4%, respectively). Among TOPCAT participants, the hazard for adverse cardiovascular events per point increase in HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF score was 1.26 (95% confidence interval: 0.98–1.63) and 1.01 (95% confidence interval: 0.88–1.15), respectively. A higher H2FPEF score was associated with lower peak oxygen intake in RELAX trial participants (adjusted P = 0.01). Conclusions The HFA-PEFF and the H2FPEF scores are reliable diagnostic tools for HFpEF. The prognostic utility of HFpEF scores requires further validation in larger rigorously phenotyped populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parcha et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (n=951). HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores was evaluated on Adverse cardiovascular events (HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.98-1.63). HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores reliably diagnosed HFpEF with high sensitivity (>99%) and specificity (82.8% and 95.6%), but their prognostic value for adverse cardiovascular events was not significant.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: