Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Department of Cardiology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
JAMA Cardiol. 2022 Sep 1;7(9):891-899. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2022.1916.
Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) among dyspneic patients without overt congestion is challenging. Multiple diagnostic approaches have been proposed but are not well validated against the independent gold standard for HFpEF diagnosis of an elevated pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) during exercise.
To evaluate H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores and a PCWP/cardiac output (CO) slope of more than 2 mm Hg/L/min to diagnose HFpEF.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective case-control study included patients with unexplained dyspnea from 6 centers in the US, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Australia from March 2016 to October 2020. Diagnosis of HFpEF (cases) was definitively ascertained by the presence of elevated PCWP during exertion; control individuals were those with normal rest and exercise hemodynamics.
Logistic regression was used to evaluate the accuracy of HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores to discriminate patients with HFpEF from controls.
Among 736 patients, 563 (76%) were diagnosed with HFpEF (mean [SD] age, 69 [11] years; 334 [59%] female) and 173 (24%) represented controls (mean [SD] age, 60 [15] years; 109 [63%] female). H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores discriminated patients with HFpEF from controls, but the H2FPEF score had greater area under the curve (0.845; 95% CI, 0.810-0.875) compared with the HFA-PEFF score (0.710; 95% CI, 0.659-0.756) (difference, -0.134; 95% CI, -0.177 to -0.094; P < .001). Specificity was robust for both scores, but sensitivity was poorer for HFA-PEFF, with a false-negative rate of 55% for low-probability scores compared with 25% using the H2FPEF score. Use of the PCWP/CO slope to redefine HFpEF rather than exercise PCWP reclassified 20% (117 of 583) of patients, but patients reclassified from HFpEF to control by this metric had clinical, echocardiographic, and hemodynamic features typical of HFpEF, including elevated resting PCWP in 66% (46 of 70) of reclassified patients.
In this case-control study, despite requiring fewer data, the H2FPEF score had superior diagnostic performance compared with the HFA-PEFF score and PCWP/CO slope in the evaluation of unexplained dyspnea and HFpEF in the outpatient setting.
对于没有明显充血的射血分数保留型心力衰竭(HFpEF)呼吸困难患者的诊断具有挑战性。已经提出了多种诊断方法,但它们与 HFpEF 的独立金标准(运动期间升高的肺毛细血管楔压(PCWP))相比并未得到很好的验证。
评估 H2FPEF 和 HFA-PEFF 评分以及 PCWP/心输出量(CO)斜率大于 2 mm Hg/L/min 以诊断 HFpEF。
设计、地点和参与者:这是一项在美国、荷兰、丹麦和澳大利亚的 6 个中心进行的回顾性病例对照研究,纳入了不明原因呼吸困难的患者。HFpEF 的诊断(病例)通过运动时升高的 PCWP 明确确定;对照组是那些静息和运动血流动力学正常的患者。
使用逻辑回归评估 HFA-PEFF 和 H2FPEF 评分区分 HFpEF 患者与对照组的准确性。
在 736 名患者中,563 名(76%)被诊断为 HFpEF(平均[SD]年龄,69[11]岁;334[59%]女性),173 名(24%)为对照组(平均[SD]年龄,60[15]岁;109[63%]女性)。H2FPEF 和 HFA-PEFF 评分可区分 HFpEF 患者与对照组,但 H2FPEF 评分的曲线下面积(AUC)更大(0.845;95%CI,0.810-0.875),高于 HFA-PEFF 评分(0.710;95%CI,0.659-0.756)(差异,-0.134;95%CI,-0.177 至-0.094;P < 0.001)。两个评分的特异性都很稳健,但 HFA-PEFF 的敏感性较差,低概率评分的假阴性率为 55%,而 H2FPEF 评分的假阴性率为 25%。使用 PCWP/CO 斜率重新定义 HFpEF 而不是运动 PCWP 将 583 名患者中的 20%(117 名)重新分类,但根据该指标从 HFpEF 重新分类为对照组的患者具有 HFpEF 的典型临床、超声心动图和血流动力学特征,包括 66%(46 名中的 70 名)重新分类患者的静息 PCWP 升高。
在这项病例对照研究中,尽管需要的数据较少,但与 HFA-PEFF 评分和 PCWP/CO 斜率相比,H2FPEF 评分在评估门诊不明原因呼吸困难和 HFpEF 方面具有更好的诊断性能。