Cardiology Department, Santa Maria Della Misericordia Hospital, Perugia, Italy.
Université de Lorraine, INSERM, Centre d'Investigations Cliniques Plurithématique 1433, Inserm U1116, CHRU de Nancy and F-CRIN INI-CRCT, Nancy, France.
Clin Res Cardiol. 2023 Aug;112(8):1129-1142. doi: 10.1007/s00392-023-02219-y. Epub 2023 May 21.
Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains challenging despite the use of scores/algorithms. This study intended to assess the diagnostic value of exercise lung ultrasound (LUS) for HFpEF diagnosis.
We studied two independent case-control studies of HFpEF patients and control subjects undergoing different exercise protocols: (i) submaximal exercise stress echocardiography (ESE) with LUS performed by expert cardiologists (N = 116, HFpEF = 65.5%), and (ii) maximal cycle ergometer test (CET) (N = 54, HFpEF = 50%) with LUS performed by unexperienced physicians shortly trained for the study. B-line kinetics (i.e. peak values and their changes from rest) were assessed.
In the ESE cohort, the C-index (95% CI) of peak B-lines for HFpEF diagnosis was 0.985 (0.968-1.000), whereas the C-index of rest and exercise HFA-PEFF scores (i.e. including stress echo findings) were < 0.90 (CI 0.823-0.949), and that of H2FPEF score was < 0.70 (CI 0.558-0.764). The C-index increase of peak B-lines on top of the above-mentioned scores was significant (C-index increase > 0.090 and P-value < 0.001 for all). Similar results were observed for change B-lines. Peak B-lines > 5 (sensitivity = 93.4%, specificity = 97.5%) and change B-lines > 3 (sensitivity = 94.7%, specificity = 87.5%) were the best cutoffs for HFpEF diagnosis. Adding peak or change B-lines on top of HFpEF scores and BNP significantly improved diagnostic accuracy. Peak B-lines showed a good diagnostic accuracy in the LUS beginner-led CET cohort (C-index = 0.713, 0.588-0.838).
Exercise LUS showed excellent diagnostic value for HFpEF diagnosis regardless of different exercise protocols/level of expertise, with additive diagnostic accuracy on top of available scores and natriuretic peptides.
尽管使用了评分/算法,心力衰竭伴射血分数保留(HFpEF)的诊断仍然具有挑战性。本研究旨在评估运动性肺超声(LUS)对 HFpEF 诊断的诊断价值。
我们研究了两项 HFpEF 患者和对照受试者的独立病例对照研究,这些患者接受了不同的运动方案:(i)由专家心脏病学家进行的亚最大运动超声心动图(ESE)联合 LUS(N=116,HFpEF=65.5%),以及(ii)由未经训练的医生在研究期间进行的最大循环测力计测试(CET)联合 LUS(N=54,HFpEF=50%)。评估 B 线动力学(即峰值及其与休息时的变化)。
在 ESE 队列中,HFpEF 诊断的峰值 B 线的 C 指数(95%CI)为 0.985(0.968-1.000),而休息时和运动性 HFA-PEFF 评分(即包括应激超声发现)的 C 指数<0.90(CI 0.823-0.949),H2FPEF 评分的 C 指数<0.70(CI 0.558-0.764)。在上述评分之上增加峰值 B 线的 C 指数增加具有显著意义(所有 P 值均<0.001)。改变 B 线的结果类似。峰值 B 线>5(敏感性=93.4%,特异性=97.5%)和改变 B 线>3(敏感性=94.7%,特异性=87.5%)是 HFpEF 诊断的最佳截断值。在 HFpEF 评分和 BNP 之上添加峰值或改变 B 线可显著提高诊断准确性。在由 LUS 初学者领导的 CET 队列中,峰值 B 线显示出良好的诊断准确性(C 指数=0.713,0.588-0.838)。
无论运动方案/专业水平如何,运动性 LUS 对 HFpEF 诊断均具有出色的诊断价值,并且在现有评分和利钠肽之上具有附加的诊断准确性。