Applying the ESC 2016, H2 FPEF, and HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithms for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction to the general population

Race- and Ethnicity-Related Differences in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Using Natural Language Processing

Background

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is the predominant form of HF in older adults. It represents a heterogenous clinical syndrome that is less well understood across different ethnicities.

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the clinical presentation and assess the diagnostic performance of existing HFpEF diagnostic tools between ethnic groups.

Methods

A validated Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithm was applied to the electronic health records of a large London hospital to identify patients meeting the European Society of Cardiology criteria for a diagnosis of HFpEF. NLP extracted patient demographics (including self-reported ethnicity and socioeconomic status), comorbidities, investigation results (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, H2FPEF scores, and echocardiogram reports), and mortality. Analyses were stratified by ethnicity and adjusted for socioeconomic status.

Results

Our cohort consisted of 1,261 (64%) White, 578 (29%) Black, and 134 (7%) Asian patients meeting the European Society of Cardiology HFpEF diagnostic criteria. Compared to White patients, Black patients were younger at diagnosis and more likely to have metabolic comorbidities (obesity, diabetes, and hypertension) but less likely to have atrial fibrillation (30% vs 13%; P < 0.001). Black patients had lower N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels and a lower frequency of H2FPEF scores ≥6, indicative of likely HFpEF (26% vs 44%; P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Leveraging an NLP-based artificial intelligence approach to quantify health inequities in HFpEF diagnosis, we discovered that established markers systematically underdiagnose HFpEF in Black patients, possibly due to differences in the underlying comorbidity patterns. Clinicians should be aware of these limitations and its implications for treatment and trial recruitment.

Diagnostic and prognostic value of the HFA-PEFF score for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

To assess the diagnostic and prognostic performances of the Heart Failure Association Pre-test Assessment, Echocardiography & Natriuretic Peptide, Functional Testing, Final Etiology (HFA-PEFF) score for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a comprehensive manner.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched from the inception to June 12, 2023. Studies using the "Rule-out" or "Rule-in" approach for diagnosis analysis or studies on cardiovascular events and all-cause death for prognosis analysis were included. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was adopted to assess the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. The sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve (AUC) were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For CVEs and all-cause death, the hazard ratio (HR) values were calculated.

Results

Fifteen studies involving 6420 subjects were included, with 9 for diagnosis analysis, and 7 for prognosis analysis. For the diagnostic performance of the HFA-PEFF score, with the "Rule-out" approach, the pooled SEN was 0.96 (95%CI: 0.94, 0.97), the pooled SPE was 0.39 (95%CI: 0.37, 0.42), and the pooled AUC was 0.85 (95%CI: 0.67, 1.00), and with the "Rule-in" approach, the pooled SEN was 0.59 (95%CI: 0.56, 0.61), the pooled SPE was 0.86 (95%CI: 0.84, 0.88), and the pooled AUC was 0.83 (95%CI: 0.79, 0.87). For the predictive performance of the HFA-PEFF score, regarding CVEs, the pooled SEN was 0.63 (95%CI: 0.58, 0.67), the pooled SPE was 0.53 (95%CI: 0.49, 0.58), and the pooled AUC was 0.65 (95%CI: 0.40, 0.90), and concerning All-cause death, the pooled SEN was 0.85 (95%CI: 0.81, 0.88), the pooled SPE was 0.48 (95%CI: 0.44, 0.52), and the pooled AUC was 0.65 (95%CI: 0.47, 0.83). A higher HFA-PEFF score was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death (HR 1.390, 95%CI 1.240, 1.558, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

The HFA-PEFF score might be applied in HFpEF diagnosis and all-cause death prediction. More studies are required for finding validation.

A deep patient-similarity learning framework for the assessment of diastolic dysfunction in elderly patients

AIMS

Age-related changes in cardiac structure and function are well recognized and make the clinical determination of abnormal left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) particularly challenging in the elderly. We investigated whether a deep neural network (DeepNN) model of LVDD, previously validated in a younger cohort, can be implemented in an older population to predict incident heart failure (HF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A previously developed DeepNN was tested on 5596 older participants (66-90 years; 57% female; 20% Black) from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. The association of DeepNN predictions with HF or all-cause death for the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Stage A/B (n = 4054) and Stage C/D (n = 1542) subgroups was assessed. The DeepNN-predicted high-risk compared with the low-risk phenogroup demonstrated an increased incidence of HF and death for both Stage A/B and Stage C/D (log-rank P < 0.0001 for all). In multi-variable analyses, the high-risk phenogroup remained an independent predictor of HF and death in both Stages A/B {adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] 6.52 [4.20-10.13] and 2.21 [1.68-2.91], both P < 0.0001} and Stage C/D [6.51 (4.06-10.44) and 1.03 (1.00-1.06), both P < 0.0001], respectively. In addition, DeepNN showed incremental value over the 2016 American Society of Echocardiography/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (ASE/EACVI) guidelines [net re-classification index, 0.5 (CI 0.4-0.6), P < 0.001; C-statistic improvement, DeepNN (0.76) vs. ASE/EACVI (0.70), P < 0.001] overall and maintained across stage groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite training with a younger cohort, a deep patient-similarity-based learning framework for assessing LVDD provides a robust prediction of all-cause death and incident HF for older patients.

The role of coronary microvascular dysfunction in the pathogenesis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a common condition with few effective therapies and hence represents a major healthcare burden. The clinical syndrome of HFpEF can be caused by varying pathophysiological processes, with coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) proposed as one of the aetiologies, although confirming causality has been challenging. CMD is characterised by the inability of the coronary vasculature to augment blood flow in response to a physiological stressor and has been established as the driver of angina in patients with non-obstructed coronaries (ANOCA), and this has subsequently led to efficacious endotype-directed therapies. CMD is also highly prevalent among sufferers of HFpEF and may represent a novel treatment target for this particular endotype of this condition. This review aims to discuss the role of the microcirculation in the healthy heart how it's dysfunction may precipitate HFpEF and explore the current diagnostic tools available. We also discuss the gaps in evidence and where we believe future research should be focussed.

Epidemiology of heart failure in diabetes: a disease in disguise

Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) without symptoms, and heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represent the most common phenotypes of HF in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and are more common than HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) in these individuals. However, diagnostic criteria for HF have changed over the years, resulting in heterogeneity in the prevalence/incidence rates reported in different studies. We aimed to give an overview of the diagnosis and epidemiology of HF in type 2 diabetes, using both a narrative and systematic review approach; we focus narratively on diagnosing (using the 2021 European Society of Cardiology [ESC] guidelines) and screening for HF in type 2 diabetes. We performed an updated (2016-October 2022) systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting the prevalence and incidence of HF subtypes in adults ≥18 years with type 2 diabetes, using echocardiographic data. Embase and MEDLINE databases were searched and data were assessed using random-effects meta-analyses, with findings presented as forest plots. From the 5015 studies found, 209 were screened using the full-text article. In total, 57 studies were included, together with 29 studies that were identified in a prior meta-analysis; these studies reported on the prevalence of LVSD (n=25 studies, 24,460 individuals), LVDD (n=65 studies, 25,729 individuals), HFrEF (n=4 studies, 4090 individuals), HFmrEF (n=2 studies, 2442 individuals) and/or HFpEF (n=8 studies, 5292 individuals), and on HF incidence (n=7 studies, 17,935 individuals). Using Hoy et al's risk-of-bias tool, we found that the studies included generally had a high risk of bias. They showed a prevalence of 43% (95% CI 37%, 50%) for LVDD, 17% (95% CI 7%, 35%) for HFpEF, 6% (95% CI 3%, 10%) for LVSD, 7% (95% CI 3%, 15%) for HFrEF, and 12% (95% CI 7%, 22%) for HFmrEF. For LVDD, grade I was found to be most prevalent. Additionally, we reported a higher incidence rate of HFpEF (7% [95% CI 4%, 11%]) than HFrEF 4% [95% CI 3%, 7%]). The evidence is limited by the heterogeneity of the diagnostic criteria over the years. The systematic section of this review provides new insights on the prevalence/incidence of HF in type 2 diabetes, unveiling a large pre-clinical target group with LVDD/HFpEF in which disease progression could be halted by early recognition and treatment.Registration PROSPERO ID CRD42022368035.

Back to the basics: The need for an etiological classification of chronic heart failure

The left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF), despite its severe limitations, has had an epicentral role in heart failure (HF) classification, management, and risk stratification for decades. The major argument favoring the LVEF based HF classification has been that it defines groups of patients in which treatment is effective. However, this reasoning has recently collapsed, since medical treatment with neurohormonal inhibitors, has proved beneficial in most HF patients regardless of the LVEF. In addition, there has been compelling evidence, that the LVEF provides poor guidance for device treatment of chronic HF (implantation of cardioverter defibrillator, cardiac resynchronization therapy) since sudden cardiac death may occur and cardiac dyssynchronization may be disastrous in all HF patients. The same holds true for LV assist device implantation, in which the LVEF has been used as a surrogate for LV size. In this review article we update the evidence questioning the use of LVEF-based HF classification and argue that guidance of chronic HF treatment should transition to more contemporary concepts. Specifically, we propose an etiologic chronic HF classification predominantly based on epidemiological data, which will be foundational for further higher resolution phenotyping in the emerging era of precision medicine.

Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic narrative review of the evidence

Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a common condition in clinical practice, affecting more than half of patients with HF. HFpEF is associated with morbidity and mortality and with considerable healthcare resource utilization and costs. Therefore, early diagnosis is crucial to facilitate prompt management, particularly initiation of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. Although European guidelines define HFpEF as the presence of symptoms with or without signs of HF, left ventricular EF ≥ 50%, and objective evidence of cardiac structural and/or functional abnormalities, together with elevated natriuretic peptide levels, the diagnosis of HFpEF remains challenging. First, there is no clear consensus on how HFpEF should be defined. Furthermore, diagnostic tools, such as natriuretic peptide levels and resting echocardiogram findings, are significantly limited in the diagnosis of HFpEF. As a result, some patients are overdiagnosed (i.e., elderly people with comorbidities that mimic HF), although in other cases, HFpEF is overlooked. In this manuscript, we perform a systematic narrative review of the diagnostic approach to patients with HFpEF. We also propose a comprehensible algorithm that can be easily applied in daily clinical practice and could prove useful for confirming or ruling out a diagnosis of HFpEF.

Comprehensive diagnostic workup in patients with suspected heart failure and preserved ejection fraction

Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) can be challenging and it could require different tests, some of which are affected by limited availability. Nowadays, considering that new therapies are available for HFpEF and related conditions, a prompt and correct diagnosis is relevant. However, the diagnostic role of biomarker level, imaging tools, score-based algorithms and invasive evaluation, should be based on the strengths and weaknesses of each test. The aim of this review is to help the clinician in diagnosing HFpEF, overcoming the diagnostic uncertainty and disentangling among the different underlying causes, in order to properly treat this kind of patient.

Relative importance of left atrial reservoir strain compared with components of the HFA-PEFF score: a cross-sectional study

Background

The relative importance of left atrial reservoir strain (LASr) regarding the Heart Failure Association Pre-test assessment, Echocardiography and natriuretic peptide, Functional testing, Final etiology (HFA-PEFF) score, a diagnostic tool for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), remains unclear. We aimed to identify the relative importance of LASr compared with variables associated with HFpEF and HFA-PEFF scores.

Methods

Between August 2021 and July 2022, we obtained retrospective data from the participants visiting a single cardiovascular center with subjective symptoms of heart failure, such as dyspnea or chest discomfort. In total, 2,712 participants with sinus rhythm and ejection fraction of more than 50% were enrolled. Multivariable logistic regression analysis, random forest analysis, and supervised machine learning algorithms were performed to identify the relative importance of LASr to the HFA-PEFF score.

Results

The average HFA-PEFF score was 2.4 ± 1.6 points. Two hundred and thirty-eight participants had 5 or 6 points. LASr showed a moderate correlation with the HFA-PEFF score (r = -0.50, p < 0.001). Impaired LASr < 25.2% was an independent variable affecting a high HFA-PEFF score with traditional diastolic function parameters and components of the HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithm. The odds ratio (OR) [1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23-2.47] for LASr was higher compared to that of left ventricular global longitudinal strain (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.14-2.21), septal E/e' (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.85-1.77), and relative wall thickness (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.76-1.89). LASr was also a relatively more important variable in estimating a high HFA-PEFF score than TR-Vmax, septal E/e', septal e', left ventricular mass index, and relative wall thickness, the major echocardiographic components of the HFA-PEFF score.

Conclusions

LASr is an important factor with components of the HFA-PEFF score and is a useful tool to assess patients with HFpEF.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: https://clinicaltrials.org. Unique identifiers: NCT05638230.

Electronic health record characterization and outcomes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Electronic health record (EHR)-based identification of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the clinical setting may facilitate screening for clinical trials by improving the understanding of its epidemiology and outcomes; yet, previous data have yielded variable results. We sought to characterize groups identified with HFpEF by different EHR screening strategies and their associated long-term outcomes across a large and diverse population.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 116,499 consecutive patients from an academic referral center who underwent echocardiography, and 9,263 patients who underwent echocardiography within 6 months of right heart catheterization (RHC), between 2008 and 2018. EHR-based screening strategies identified patients with HFpEF using 1) International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9/10 codes, 2) H2FpEF score ≥6 and ejection fraction (EF) ≥50%, or 3) RHC wedge pressure ≥15 mmHg and EF ≥50%, when available. Primary outcomes were 1) cumulative incident heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and 2) death, over 10 years.

RESULTS

There were 33,461 (29%) patients who met either ICD or H2FpEF-HFpEF definition, of whom 5,310 (16%) met both criteria. Compared to ICD-HFpEF, patients with H2FpEF-HFpEF were more likely older (median age 72 vs 67), White (78% vs 64%), and had atrial fibrillation (97% vs 41%). Among those also with RHC, 6,353 (69%) patients met any HFpEF criteria, of whom only 783 (12%) satisfied all three criteria. Female sex was more common among RHC-HFpEF (55%) compared to other methods (H2FpEF-HFpEF, 47%; ICD-HFpEF, 43%). Atrial fibrillation was substantially higher among HFpEF identified by the H2FpEF score (97%) compared to other methods (49% for ICD and 47% for RHC). Across HFpEF screening methods, 10-year cumulative incidence rates for HFH was 32% to 45% for echocardiography only and 43% to 52% for echocardiography and RHC populations; 10-year risk of death was 54% to 56% for echocardiography only and 52% to 57% for echocardiography and RHC populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Different EHR-based HFpEF definitions identified cohorts with modest overlap and varying baseline characteristics. Yet, long-term risk for HFH and death were similarly high for cohorts identified among both populations undergoing echocardiography only or echocardiography and RHC. These data aid in identifying relevant subgroups in clinical trials of HFpEF.

Value of the HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithms for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction to the inflammatory myopathy population

OBJECTIVES

The HFA-PEFF score has been validated to hold great diagnostic and prognostic utility for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) is recognized as one of the potential etiologies underlying HFpEF. Here, we intended to investigate the real prevalence of HFpEF in IIM via the HFA-PEFF score and explore the prognostic value of this score.

METHODS

Two hundred twenty IIM patients were enrolled for assessment. The cohort was divided into low, intermediate and high tertiles of the HFA-PEFF score. Spearman's correlation analysis was used to explore the association between the score and disease activity. Chi-square test was applied to investigate the distribution discrepancy of HFA-PEFF tertiles among patients with different myositis-specific antibodies (MSAs) or myositis-associated antibodies (MAAs). Univariate and multivariate ordinal regression analyses were performed to screen risk factors for high HFA-PEFF scores. Survival curves were obtained using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests.

RESULTS

In total, 79 (35.9%), 107 (48.6%) and 34 (15.5%) patients were rated low, intermediate and high probability of HFpEF, respectively. The HFA-PEFF score correlated well with disease activity. Patients with positive AMA-M2 scored higher in the HFA-PEFF score (p = 0.011). During follow-up, patients with positive AMA-M2 or anti-SRP antibody developed an inclination towards concentric hypertrophy on echocardiography. Additionally, palpitation symptom, AMA-M2 positivity and elevated serum levels of LDH, cTnI were independent risk factors for high HFA-PEFF scores. Finally, a high-tertile HFA-PEFF score was related to lower overall survival rate (p < 0.001). Patients with positive AMA-M2 had poorer outcomes (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

HFpEF was prevailing in IIM patients according to the HFA-PEFF score. The HFA-PEFF score correlated well with disease activity and held significant prognostic value. Patients with AMA-M2 antibody were prone to have poor outcomes.

Automated Echocardiographic Detection of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Using Artificial Intelligence

Background

Detection of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) involves integration of multiple imaging and clinical features which are often discordant or indeterminate.

Objectives

The authors applied artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze a single apical 4-chamber transthoracic echocardiogram video clip to detect HFpEF.

Methods

A 3-dimensional convolutional neural network was developed and trained on apical 4-chamber video clips to classify patients with HFpEF (diagnosis of heart failure, ejection fraction ≥50%, and echocardiographic evidence of increased filling pressure; cases) vs without HFpEF (ejection fraction ≥50%, no diagnosis of heart failure, normal filling pressure; controls). Model outputs were classified as HFpEF, no HFpEF, or nondiagnostic (high uncertainty). Performance was assessed in an independent multisite data set and compared to previously validated clinical scores.

Results

Training and validation included 2,971 cases and 3,785 controls (validation holdout, 16.8% patients), and demonstrated excellent discrimination (area under receiver-operating characteristic curve: 0.97 [95% CI: 0.96-0.97] and 0.95 [95% CI: 0.93-0.96] in training and validation, respectively). In independent testing (646 cases, 638 controls), 94 (7.3%) were nondiagnostic; sensitivity (87.8%; 95% CI: 84.5%-90.9%) and specificity (81.9%; 95% CI: 78.2%-85.6%) were maintained in clinically relevant subgroups, with high repeatability and reproducibility. Of 701 and 776 indeterminate outputs from the Heart Failure Association-Pretest Assessment, Echocardiographic and Natriuretic Peptide Score, Functional Testing (HFA-PEFF), and Final Etiology and Heavy, Hypertensive, Atrial Fibrillation, Pulmonary Hypertension, Elder, and Filling Pressure (H2FPEF) scores, the AI HFpEF model correctly reclassified 73.5% and 73.6%, respectively. During follow-up (median: 2.3 [IQR: 0.5-5.6] years), 444 (34.6%) patients died; mortality was higher in patients classified as HFpEF by AI (HR: 1.9 [95% CI: 1.5-2.4]).

Conclusions

An AI HFpEF model based on a single, routinely acquired echocardiographic video demonstrated excellent discrimination of patients with vs without HFpEF, more often than clinical scores, and identified patients with higher mortality.

New Opportunities in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: From Bench to Bedside… and Back

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a growing public health problem in nearly 50% of patients with heart failure. Therefore, research on new strategies for its diagnosis and management has become imperative in recent years. Few drugs have successfully improved clinical outcomes in this population. Therefore, numerous attempts are being made to find new pharmacological interventions that target the main mechanisms responsible for this disease. In recent years, pathological mechanisms such as cardiac fibrosis and inflammation, alterations in calcium handling, NO pathway disturbance, and neurohumoral or mechanic impairment have been evaluated as new pharmacological targets showing promising results in preliminary studies. This review aims to analyze the new strategies and mechanical devices, along with their initial results in pre-clinical and different phases of ongoing clinical trials for HFpEF patients. Understanding new mechanisms to generate interventions will allow us to create methods to prevent the adverse outcomes of this silent pandemic.

Value of the HFA-PEFF and H2 FPEF scores in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction caused by cardiac amyloidosis

AIMS

The HFA-PEFF and H₂ FPEF scores have been developed to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and hold prognostic value. Their value in patients with HFpEF caused by cardiac amyloidosis (CA) has never been investigated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We evaluated the diagnostic and prognostic value of the HFA-PEFF and H₂ FPEF scores in 304 patients from three cohorts with HFpEF caused by transthyretin CA (n = 160, 53%) or immunoglobulin light-chain CA (n = 144, 47%). A diagnosis of HFpEF was more likely using the HFA-PEFF score with 2 (1%), 71 (23%), and 231 (76%) patients ranked as having a low (0-1), intermediate (2-4), or high (5, 6) probability of HFpEF, respectively. Conversely, 36 (12%), 179 (59%) and 89 (29%) of patients ranked as having a low (0-1), intermediate (2-5), or high (6-9) probability of HFpEF using the H₂ FPEF score. During a median follow-up of 19 months (interquartile range 8-40), 132 (43%) patients died. The HFA-PEFF score, but not the H₂ FPEF score, predicted a high risk of all-cause death which remained significant after adjustment for age, AL-CA diagnosis, high-sensitivity troponin T, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and echocardiographic parameters, including left ventricular global longitudinal strain, left ventricular diastolic function and right ventricular function (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.16-1.95, p = 0.002 for every 1-point increase in HFA-PEFF).

CONCLUSIONS

The HFA-PEFF score has a higher diagnostic utility in HFpEF caused by CA and holds independent prognostic value for all-cause mortality, while the H₂ FPEF score does not.

Visualizing diastolic failure: Non-invasive imaging-biomarkers in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is an increasing challenge for modern day medicine and has been drawing more attention recently. Invasive right heart catheterization represents the mainstay for the diagnosis of diastolic dysfunction, however due to its attributable risk of an invasive procedure, other non-invasive clinical pathways are trying to approach this pathology in clinical practice. Diastolic failure is complex, and imaging is based on various parameters. In addition to transthoracic echocardiography, numerous novel imaging approaches, such as cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, positron emission (computed) tomography or single photon emission computed tomography techniques are being used to supplement deeper insights into causal pathology and might open targets for dedicated therapy options. This article provides insights into these sophisticated imaging techniques, their incremental value for the diagnosis of this poorly understood disease and recent promising results for an enhanced prognostication of outcome and therapy monitoring.

Echocardiographic diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in elderly patients with hypertension

Objectives. The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of echocardiography for the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the elderly and to validate the Heart Failure Association diagnostic algorithm (HFA-PEFF). Design. A case-control study was conducted in patients with hypertension with or without HFpEF who were matched for age (n = 33; 78.4 ± 5.3 years) and sex. Participants underwent echocardiography including assessment of left atrial (LA) volume index (LAVI), early mitral filling to early diastolic mitral annulus velocity ratio (E/e'), LA reservoir strain (LASr), tissue Doppler LA contraction (a'), right ventricular isovolumic relaxation time (RVIVRT), and a 6-minute walk test (6-MWT). The filling pressure algorithm from the European association of cardiovascular imaging (EACVI) 2021 was applied. The HFA-PEFF score was also applied, using echocardiography parameters and the value of NT pro-BNP, without considering symptomatic status. Results. Echocardiographic parameters identified patients with HFpEF with an area under the curve (AUC) >0.9 for E/e', RVIVRT, LASr, a', and the ratio of LAVI/a'. LASr correlated with 6-MWT (r = 0.59, p = .0003). The EACVI algorithm classified all controls with normal filling pressure and 94% of patients with HFpEF with increased filling pressure. When the HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithm was validated, a high score (≥5 points) had 100% sensitivity for HFpEF, while 88% of controls had intermediate scores (2-4 points). Conclusion. The EACVI filling pressure algorithm, RVIVRT, LASr, and the ratio LAVI/a' were accurate for diagnosing HFpEF in elderly patients with hypertension. The HFA-PEFF score had high sensitivity but limited ability to exclude HFpEF.

Heart failure: an update from the last years and a look at the near future

In the last years, major progress occurred in heart failure (HF) management. Quadruple therapy is now mandatory for all the patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Whilst verciguat is becoming available across several countries, omecamtiv mecarbil is waiting to be released for clinical use. Concurrent use of potassium-lowering agents may counteract hyperkalaemia and facilitate renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor implementations. The results of the EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved) trial were confirmed by the Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction (DELIVER) trial, and we now have, for the first time, evidence for treatment of also patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction. In a pre-specified meta-analysis of major randomized controlled trials, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors reduced all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and HF hospitalization in the patients with HF regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction. Other steps forward have occurred in the treatment of decompensated HF. Acetazolamide in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure with Volume Overload (ADVOR) trial showed that the addition of intravenous acetazolamide to loop diuretics leads to greater decongestion vs. placebo. The addition of hydrochlorothiazide to loop diuretics was evaluated in the CLOROTIC trial. Torasemide did not change outcomes, compared with furosemide, in TRANSFORM-HF. Ferric derisomaltose had an effect on the primary outcome of CV mortality or HF rehospitalizations in IRONMAN (rate ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.02; P = 0.070). Further options for the treatment of HF, including device therapies, cardiac contractility modulation, and percutaneous treatment of valvulopathies, are summarized in this article.

Evaluation of the HFA-PEFF Score: results from the prospective DIAST-CHF cohort

AIMS

Although the number of patients suffering from heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) increases, the routine diagnosis remains a challenge. In the absence of a pathognomonic sign for HFpEF or specific treatment strategies, a prognosis-based characterization of suspected patients remains promising for both the risk stratification of the patients and a disease definition. The Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology has introduced an algorithm with different levels of likelihood regarding the diagnosis of HFpEF, the HFA-PEFF score. We aimed to evaluate the predictive value of this algorithm in a large cohort regarding mortality, symptom burden, and the functional status.

METHODS AND RESULTS

DIAST-CHF is a multicentre, population-based, prospective, observational study in subjects with at least one risk factor for HFpEF between the age of 50 and 85. We calculated the HFA-PEFF score (n = 1668) and analysed the risk groups for overall mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, and submaximal functional capacity (6-min walk distance) at baseline and after a follow-up period of 10 years. Patients with high HFA-PEFF score values 5&6 showed a higher mortality than those with an intermediate score (score values 2-4) and low score values (high 21.3% vs. intermediate 10.1% vs. low 4.3%, P < 0.001). Also, the burden of MACE (death, cardiovascular hospitalization, new myocardial infarction, first diagnosis of HF) was increased in the high score values group (high 40.7% vs. intermediate 25.9% vs. low 13.9%, P < 0.001). Similarly, patients with higher scores had higher cumulative incidences of cardiovascular hospitalizations (P = 0.011). Subjects with higher scores also had lower 6-min walk distance both at baseline and during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The HFA-PEFF score provides a reliable instrument to stratify suspected HFpEF patients by their risk for mortality, symptom burden, and functional status in cohort at risk with a follow-up period of 10 years. As high HFA-PEFF scores are associated with worse outcome, the HFA-PEFF algorithm describes a defining approach towards HFpEF.

Current Understanding of Molecular Pathophysiology of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Heart Failure (HF) is the most common cause of hospitalization in the Western societies. HF is a heterogeneous and complex syndrome that may result from any dysfunction of systolic or diastolic capacity. Abnormal diastolic left ventricular function with impaired relaxation and increased diastolic stiffness is characteristic of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). HFpEF accounts for more than 50% of all cases of HF. The prevalence increases with age: from around 1% for those aged <55 years to >10% in those aged 70 years or over. Nearly 50% of HF patients have HFrEF and the other 50% have HFpEF/HFmrEF, mainly based on studies in hospitalized patients. The ESC Long-Term Registry, in the outpatient setting, reports that 60% have HFrEF, 24% have HFmrEF, and 16% have HFpEF. To some extent, more than 50% of HF patients are female. HFpEF is closely associated with co-morbidities, age, and gender. Epidemiological evidence suggests that HFpEF is highly represented in older obese women and proposed as 'obese female HFpEF phenotype'. While HFrEF phenotype is more a male phenotype. In addition, metabolic abnormalities and hemodynamic perturbations in obese HFpEF patients appear to have a greater impact in women then in men (Sorimachi et al., European J of Heart Fail, 2022, 22). To date, numerous clinical trials of HFpEF treatments have produced disappointing results. This outcome suggests that a "one size fits all" approach to HFpEF may be inappropriate and supports the use of tailored, personalized therapeutic strategies with specific treatments for distinct HFpEF phenotypes. The most important mediators of diastolic stiffness are the cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells, and extracellular matrix (ECM). The complex physiological signal transduction networks that respond to the dual challenges of inflammatory and oxidative stress are major factors that promote the development of HFpEF pathologies. These signalling networks contribute to the development of the diseases. Inhibition and/or attenuation of these signalling networks also delays the onset of disease. In this review, we discuss the molecular mechanisms associated with the physiological responses to inflammation and oxidative stress and emphasize the nature of the contribution of most important cells to the development of HFpEF via increased inflammation and oxidative stress.

A Novel Three-Dimensional and Tissue Doppler Echocardiographic Index for Diagnosing and Prognosticating Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Introduction

The diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains challenging. In this study, a novel echocardiography index based on three-dimensional and tissue Doppler echocardiography for diagnosing and estimating prognosis in HFpEF.

Materials and Methods

Patients with symptoms and/or signs of heart failure and normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≥50%) who underwent right heart catheterization were screened. Patients were divided based on pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) of ≥15 mmHg and PCWP <15 mmHg. A diagnosis of HFpEF was confirmed by PCWP of ≥15 mmHg according to ESC guidelines. A novel index was calculated by the ratio between stroke volume standardized to body surface area (SVI) and tissue Doppler mitral annulus systolic peak velocity S' (SVI/S'). Its diagnostic and prognostic values were determined.

Results

A total of 104 patients (mean age 64 ± 12 years) were included. Of these, 63 had PCWP ≥15 mmHg and 41 patients had PCWP <15 mmHg. Compared to the PCWP <15 mmHg group, the ≥15 mmHg group had a significantly lower SVI/S' (P < 0.001). Logistic regression showed that SVI/S' was associated with high PCWP measured invasively. The SVI/S' had an area under the curve of 0.761 for diagnosing classifying between PCWP ≥15 mmHg and <15 mmHg. Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that the lower SVI/S' group showed a poorer prognosis.

Conclusions

SVI/S' is a non-invasive index calculated by three-dimensional and tissue Doppler echocardiography. It is a surrogate measure of PCWP and can be used to diagnose and determine prognosis in HFpEF.

Applying the ESC 2016, H2 FPEF, and HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithms for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction to the general population

AIMS

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is common in patients presenting with dyspnoea. Recently, clinical tools were developed to facilitate the diagnosis of HFpEF. Here, we apply the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2016 heart failure guidelines and the H2 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

This study included the first 10 000 participants of the population-based Hamburg City Health Study. A total of 5613 subjects, aged 62 ± 8.7 years (51.1% women), qualified for the analysis. Unexplained dyspnoea was present in 407 (7.3%) subjects. In those, the estimated prevalence of HFpEF was 20.4% (ESC 2016), 12.3% (H2 FPEF), and 7.6% (HFA-PEFF). The majority of subjects was classified as HFpEF not excludable according to the HFA-PEFF (57.7%) and H2 FPEF (59.2%) scores. For all algorithms, subjects diagnosed with HFpEF showed elevated age and body mass index as well as a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and arterial hypertension compared with those without HFpEF or HFpEF not excludable. The distribution of those co-morbidities and risk factors varied between the differently diagnosed HFpEF groups with the highest burden in the HFpEF group defined by the H2 FPEF score. The overlap of subjects diagnosed with HFpEF according to the different algorithms was very limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Unexplained dyspnoea is common in the middle-aged general population. The ESC 2016 algorithm and the H2 FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores detect different, discordant subpopulations of probands with breathlessness. Further classification of the HFpEF syndrome is desirable.