Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ionic-Molecular Function of Cardiovascular Disease, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, the Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2023 Aug;50(8):677-687. doi: 10.1111/1440-1681.13782. Epub 2023 May 19.
The diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a challenge. There are three methods proposed as diagnostic tools. H FPEF score was determined by six weighted clinical characteristics and echocardiographic variables. Heart Failure Association (HFA)-PEFF algorithm consists of various functional and morphological variables as well as natriuretic peptides. SVI/S' is a novel echocardiographic parameter calculated by stroke volume index and mitral annulus systolic peak velocity. This study aimed to compare the three approaches in patients with suspected HFpEF. Patients referred to right heart catheterization for suspected HFpEF were classified into low-, intermediate- and high-likelihood groups according to H FPEF or HFA-PEFF scores. A diagnosis of HFpEF was confirmed by pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) of ≥15 mm Hg according to the guidelines. In result, a total of 128 patients were included. Of these, 71 patients with PCWP ≥15 mm Hg and 57 patients with PCWP <15 mm Hg. Moderate correlations were observed between H FPEF score, HFA-PEFF score, SVI/S' and PCWP. The area under curve of SVI/S' was 0.82 for diagnosis of HFpEF, compared with 0.67 for H FPEF score and 0.75 for HFA-PEFF score by receiver-operating characteristics analysis. Combining SVI/S' with diagnostic scores showed higher Youden index and accuracy than each score alone. Kaplan-Meier analysis reported that the high-likelihood group showed poorer outcomes regardless the method used for diagnosis. Among the contemporary tools for identifying HFpEF in this study, the combination of SVI/S' with risk scores showed best diagnostic ability. Each of the strategies can determine rehospitalisation because of heart failure.
射血分数保留的心力衰竭(HFpEF)的诊断仍然具有挑战性。有三种方法被提议作为诊断工具。HFPEF 评分由六个加权临床特征和超声心动图变量确定。心力衰竭协会(HFA)-PEFF 算法由各种功能和形态变量以及利钠肽组成。SVI/S'是通过计算stroke volume index 和 mitral annulus systolic peak velocity 得出的一种新的超声心动图参数。本研究旨在比较三种方法在疑似 HFpEF 患者中的应用。根据 HFPEF 或 HFA-PEFF 评分,将因疑似 HFpEF 而行右心导管检查的患者分为低、中、高可能性组。根据指南,HFpEF 的诊断通过肺毛细血管楔压(PCWP)≥15mmHg 得到确认。结果,共纳入 128 例患者。其中,71 例 PCWP≥15mmHg,57 例 PCWP<15mmHg。HFPEF 评分、HFA-PEFF 评分、SVI/S'和 PCWP 之间存在中度相关性。SVI/S'诊断 HFpEF 的曲线下面积为 0.82,而 HFPEF 评分和 HFA-PEFF 评分的曲线下面积分别为 0.67 和 0.75。通过接受者操作特征分析,SVI/S'与诊断评分相结合的曲线下面积比单独使用每个评分的曲线下面积更高。Kaplan-Meier 分析报告称,无论使用哪种方法进行诊断,高可能性组的预后均较差。在本研究中,用于识别 HFpEF 的当代工具中,SVI/S'与风险评分相结合的方法具有最佳的诊断能力。这些策略中的每一种都可以确定因心力衰竭而再次住院的情况。