Ariyaratnam JP, Mishima RS, Kadhim K, Emami M, Fitzgerald JL, Thiyagarajah A, Dziano JK, Howie JO, Middeldorp ME, Sanders P, Elliott AD. Utility and Validity of the HFA-PEFF and H
2FPEF Scores in Patients With Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation.
JACC. HEART FAILURE 2024;
12:1015-1025. [PMID:
38520461 DOI:
10.1016/j.jchf.2024.01.015]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2023] [Revised: 01/26/2024] [Accepted: 01/31/2024] [Indexed: 03/25/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) represents a significant clinical challenge. Two diagnostic scoring tools have been developed to aid the noninvasive diagnosis of HFpEF: the HFA-PEFF (Heart Failure Association Pre-test assessment, Echocardiography and natriuretic peptide, Functional testing, Final etiology) and the H2FPEF scoring systems.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of these 2 scoring tools for the diagnosis of HFpEF against a gold standard of invasive evaluation in a cohort of patients with AF.
METHODS
The authors recruited consecutive patients with symptomatic AF and preserved ejection fraction who were scheduled for an AF ablation procedure. Gold-standard invasive diagnosis of HFpEF was performed at the AF ablation procedure using mean left atrial pressure at rest and following infusion of 500 mL fluid. Each participant was scored according to the noninvasive HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scoring systems. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed to assess the accuracy of these scoring systems in diagnosing HFpEF.
RESULTS
In total, 120 participants were recruited. HFpEF was diagnosed invasively in 88 (73.3%) participants, whereas 32 (26.7%) had no HFpEF. Using the HFA-PEFF score, 38 (31.7%) participants had a high probability of HFpEF and 82 (68.3%) had low/intermediate probability of HFpEF. Using the H2FPEF tool, 72 (60%) participants had a high probability of HFpEF and 48 (40%) had intermediate probability. A high HFA-PEFF (≥5 points) score could diagnose HFpEF with a sensitivity of 40% and a specificity of 91%, and a high H2FPEF score (≥6 points) could diagnose HFpEF with a sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 66%. Overall diagnostic accuracy was similar using both tools (AUC: 0.663 vs 0.707, respectively; P = 0.636).
CONCLUSIONS
Against a gold standard of invasively diagnosed HFpEF, the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores demonstrate only moderate accuracy in patients with AF and should be utilized with caution in this cohort of patients. (Characterising Left Atrial Function and Compliance in Atrial Fibrillation; ACTRN12620000639921).
Collapse