Department of Medicine, Cardiology Unit, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Medicine, Cardiology Unit, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
J Card Fail. 2021 Jul;27(7):756-765. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2021.02.005. Epub 2021 Feb 26.
Diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains challenging. We aimed to evaluate the generalizability of the HFA-PEFF (Heart Failure Association Pre-test assessment, Echocardiography & natriuretic peptide, Functional testing, Final etiology) and weighted HFPEF (Heavy, 2 or more Hypertensive drugs, atrial Fibrillation, Pulmonary hypertension, Elder age > 60, elevated Filling pressures) diagnostic algorithms and associations with HF severity, coronary microvascular dysfunction and proteomic biomarkers.
Diagnostic likelihood of HFpEF was calculated in the prospective, multinational PROMIS-HFpEF (Prevalence of microvascular dysfunction in HFpEF) cohort using current European Society of Cardiology recommendations, HFA-PEFF and HFPEF algorithms. Associations between the 2 algorithms and left atrial function, Doppler-based coronary flow reserve, 6-minute walk test, quality of life, and proteomic biomarkers were investigated. Of 181 patients with an EF of ≥50%, 129 (71%) and 94 (52%) fulfilled criteria for high likelihood HFpEF as per HFA-PEFF and HFPEF, and 28% and 46% were classified as intermediate likelihood, requiring additional hemodynamic testing. High likelihood HFpEF patients were older with higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation and lower global longitudinal strain and left atrial reservoir strain (P < .001 for all variables). left atrial reservoir strain and global longitudinal strain were inversely associated with both HFA-PEFF and HFPEF scores (TauB = -0.35 and -0.46 and -0.21 and -0.31; P < .001 for all). There were no associations between scoring and 6-minute walk test, quality of life, and coronary flow reserve. Both scores were associated with biomarkers related to inflammation, oxidative stress, and fibrosis.
Although the HFA-PEFF and HFPEF scores were associated with measures of HF severity and biomarkers related to HFpEF, they demonstrated a modest and differential ability to identify HFpEF noninvasively, necessitating additional functional testing to confirm the diagnosis.
诊断射血分数保留的心力衰竭(HFpEF)仍然具有挑战性。我们旨在评估 HFA-PEFF(心力衰竭协会预测试评估、超声心动图和利钠肽、功能测试、最终病因)和加权 HFPEF(重型,2 种或更多种高血压药物、心房颤动、肺动脉高压、年龄>60 岁、充盈压升高)诊断算法的普遍性,并探讨其与心力衰竭严重程度、冠状动脉微血管功能障碍和蛋白质组生物标志物的相关性。
使用当前欧洲心脏病学会的建议、HFA-PEFF 和 HFPEF 算法,在前瞻性、多国 PROMIS-HFpEF(HFpEF 中微血管功能障碍的患病率)队列中计算 HFpEF 的诊断可能性。研究了这两种算法与左心房功能、基于多普勒的冠状动脉血流储备、6 分钟步行试验、生活质量和蛋白质组生物标志物之间的相关性。在 181 名 EF≥50%的患者中,根据 HFA-PEFF 和 HFPEF,129 名(71%)和 94 名(52%)符合高可能性 HFpEF 的标准,28%和 46%被归类为中等可能性,需要进行额外的血流动力学测试。高可能性 HFpEF 患者年龄较大,心房颤动发生率较高,整体纵向应变和左心房储备应变较低(所有变量 P<.001)。左心房储备应变和整体纵向应变与 HFA-PEFF 和 HFPEF 评分呈负相关(TauB= -0.35 和 -0.46 和 -0.21 和 -0.31;所有 P<.001)。评分与 6 分钟步行试验、生活质量和冠状动脉血流储备之间没有关联。两个评分均与与炎症、氧化应激和纤维化相关的生物标志物相关。
尽管 HFA-PEFF 和 HFPEF 评分与心力衰竭严重程度的测量值和与 HFpEF 相关的生物标志物相关,但它们在无创识别 HFpEF 方面表现出适度和差异的能力,需要进行额外的功能测试以确认诊断。