Key result
LEDA score outperforms H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF for diagnosing HFpEF, achieving an AUC of ~0.85.
Why the study?
Diagnosis of HFpEF remains challenging because clinical findings may not reflect hemodynamic disease expression, necessitating improved diagnostic tools.
Does the LEDA score improve diagnostic accuracy for HFpEF and elevated left-sided filling pressure compared to established algorithms in patients with unexplained dyspnea?
Cohort (n=171)
Blinded to invasive hemodynamic results
No
Does the LEDA score improve diagnostic accuracy for HFpEF and elevated left-sided filling pressure compared to established algorithms in patients with unexplained dyspnea?
The LEDA score provides a mechanistically informed, noninvasive echocardiographic assessment that outperforms current clinical algorithms in identifying hemodynamically confirmed HFpEF.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
LEDA may aid noninvasive HFpEF diagnosis in uncertain cases; extends existing scores but remains hypothesis-generating pending prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains challenging because clinical findings may not reflect hemodynamic disease expression. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of LEDA (Left ventricular concentricity, E/e', left ventricle-to-left atrium Diastasis volume ratio, left Atrial reservoir function), an integrated echocardiographic score, for identifying HFpEF and elevated left-sided filling pressure (LSFP). METHODS: FPEF (Heavy, Hypertensive, Atrial fibrillation, Pulmonary hypertension, Elder, Filling pressure score) and HFA-PEFF (Heart Failure Association Pre-test assessment, Echocardiography & natriuretic peptide, Functional testing, Final etiology diagnostic algorithm); 2025 American Society of Echocardiography diastolic criteria were analyzed as an echocardiographic filling-pressure framework rather than as a standalone HFpEF diagnostic score. RESULTS: FPEF, HFA-PEFF, and American Society of Echocardiography criteria, with area under the curve of 0.85, 0.74, 0.74, and 0.61, respectively (P ≤ 0.010). At LEDA ≥3, the positive likelihood ratio was 7.4, compared with 3.0, 1.8, and 1.6, respectively. For invasive LSFP endpoints, LEDA achieved area under the curve up to 0.90, specificity up to 95.5%, and positive likelihood ratio up to 16.3. CONCLUSIONS: In this selected cohort undergoing an invasive hemodynamic assessment for diagnostic uncertainty, LEDA showed stronger diagnostic performance than contemporary HFpEF diagnostic algorithms and an echocardiographic filling-pressure framework. External validation is required before application to broader outpatient populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Palka et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Unexplained dyspnea with suspected heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (n=171). LEDA score vs. H2FPEF, HFA-PEFF, and ASE 2025 criteria was evaluated on Diagnostic performance (AUC) for clinical HFpEF (AUC 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.91, p=≤0.010). The LEDA score demonstrated stronger diagnostic performance for identifying clinical HFpEF compared to H2FPEF, HFA-PEFF, and ASE 2025 criteria.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: