Division of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
Am Heart J. 2023 Sep;263:1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2023.04.013. Epub 2023 Apr 26.
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.
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) HFpEF 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.
There were 33,461 (29%) patients who met either ICD or HFpEF-HFpEF definition, of whom 5,310 (16%) met both criteria. Compared to ICD-HFpEF, patients with HFpEF-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 (HFpEF-HFpEF, 47%; ICD-HFpEF, 43%). Atrial fibrillation was substantially higher among HFpEF identified by the HFpEF 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.
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.
基于电子健康记录(EHR)的射血分数保留型心力衰竭(HFpEF)识别在临床环境中可能通过改善对其流行病学和结果的理解,从而促进临床试验的筛选;然而,以前的数据产生了不同的结果。我们旨在通过不同的 EHR 筛选策略来描述通过不同 EHR 筛选策略识别的 HFpEF 患者的特征,并描述其在大型和多样化人群中的长期结局。
我们回顾性分析了 2008 年至 2018 年间在学术转诊中心接受超声心动图检查的 116499 例连续患者,以及在超声心动图检查后 6 个月内接受右心导管检查(RHC)的 9263 例患者。基于 EHR 的筛选策略使用以下方法识别 HFpEF 患者:1)国际疾病分类(ICD)-9/10 代码,2)HFpEF 评分≥6 和射血分数(EF)≥50%,或 3)RHC 楔压≥15mmHg 和 EF≥50%,当有条件时。主要结局是 10 年内累积发生心力衰竭住院(HFH)和 2)死亡。
有 33461 例(29%)患者符合 ICD 或 HFpEF-HFpEF 定义,其中 5310 例(16%)符合这两个标准。与 ICD-HFpEF 相比,HFpEF-HFpEF 患者年龄更大(中位年龄 72 岁 vs 67 岁)、白人比例更高(78% vs 64%)和心房颤动比例更高(97% vs 41%)。在那些也接受 RHC 的患者中,有 6353 例(69%)患者符合任何 HFpEF 标准,其中只有 783 例(12%)符合所有三个标准。与其他方法(HFpEF-HFpEF,47%;ICD-HFpEF,43%)相比,RHC-HFpEF 中女性比例更高(55%)。HFpEF 评分识别的心房颤动比例明显高于其他方法(97% vs 49%用于 ICD 和 47%用于 RHC)。在 HFpEF 筛选方法中,仅接受超声心动图检查的患者 10 年 HFH 累积发生率为 32%至 45%,超声心动图和 RHC 人群为 43%至 52%;仅接受超声心动图检查的患者 10 年死亡率为 54%至 56%,超声心动图和 RHC 人群为 52%至 57%。
不同的基于 EHR 的 HFpEF 定义确定了具有适度重叠和不同基线特征的队列。然而,仅接受超声心动图或超声心动图和 RHC 检查的人群中 HFH 和死亡的长期风险相似较高。这些数据有助于在 HFpEF 的临床试验中识别相关亚组。