Parcha Vibhu, Malla Gargya, Kalra Rajat, Patel Nirav, Sanders-van Wijk Sandra, Pandey Ambarish, Shah Sanjiv J, Arora Garima, Arora Pankaj
Division of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
ESC Heart Fail. 2021 Jun;8(3):2089-2102. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.13288. Epub 2021 Mar 11.
We sought to compare the generalizability and prognostic implications of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) scores (HFA-PEFF and H FPEF 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.
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 H FPEF 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 H FPEF 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 H FPEF 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 H FPEF score was 1.26 (95% confidence interval: 0.98-1.63) and 1.01 (95% confidence interval: 0.88-1.15), respectively. A higher H FPEF score was associated with lower peak oxygen intake in RELAX trial participants (adjusted P = 0.01).
The HFA-PEFF and the H FPEF scores are reliable diagnostic tools for HFpEF. The prognostic utility of HFpEF scores requires further validation in larger rigorously phenotyped populations.
我们试图比较射血分数保留的心力衰竭(HFpEF)评分(HFA-PEFF和HFpEF评分)在“醛固酮拮抗剂治疗射血分数保留的心力衰竭”(TOPCAT)试验、“磷酸二酯酶-5抑制剂改善射血分数保留的心力衰竭患者临床状况和运动能力”(RELAX)试验参与者以及来自社区动脉粥样硬化风险(ARIC)研究的匹配对照中的可推广性和预后意义。
根据各自的评分,将TOPCAT研究(N = 356)、RELAX研究(N = 216)和ARIC研究(N = 379)的参与者分为HFpEF可能性低、中或高。年龄、性别和种族匹配且无心血管疾病但有不明原因呼吸困难的对照用于评估诊断性能。使用多变量调整的Cox回归分析评估评分的预后价值。TOPCAT研究、RELAX研究和ARIC研究中HFA-PEFF评分的中位数分别为5.0[四分位间距(IQR):5.0 - 6.0]、4.0(IQR:2.0 - 4.0)和3.0(IQR:2.0 - 4.0)。三项研究中HFpEF评分的中位数分别为5.5(IQR:4.0 - 7.0)、6.0(IQR:4.0 - 7.0)和3.0(IQR:2.0 - 5.0)。低HFA-PEFF和HFpEF评分能够以高灵敏度(分别为99.5%和99.6%)和阴性预测值(分别为95.7%和98.3%)排除HFpEF。高HFA-PEFF和HFpEF评分能够以良好的特异性(分别为82.8%和95.6%)和阳性预测值(分别为79.9%和90.4%)诊断HFpEF。在TOPCAT参与者中,HFA-PEFF和HFpEF评分每增加1分,不良心血管事件的风险分别为1.26(95%置信区间:0.98 - 1.63)和1.01(95%置信区间:0.88 - 1.15)。在RELAX试验参与者中,较高的HFpEF评分与较低的峰值摄氧量相关(调整后P = 0.01)。
HFA-PEFF和HFpEF评分是用于HFpEF的可靠诊断工具。HFpEF评分的预后效用需要在更大规模、严格表型分型的人群中进一步验证。