Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2020 Aug;8(8):640-653.
doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2020.03.013. Epub 2020 Jun 10.

Application of Diagnostic Algorithms for Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction to the Community

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Application of Diagnostic Algorithms for Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction to the Community

Senthil Selvaraj et al. JACC Heart Fail. 2020 Aug.

Abstract

Objectives: This study sought to describe characteristics and risk of adverse outcomes associated with the H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores among participants in the community with unexplained dyspnea.

Background: Diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) can be challenging. The H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores have recently been developed to estimate the likelihood that HFpEF is present among patients with unexplained dyspnea.

Methods: The study included 4,892 ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities) study participants 67 to 90 years of age at visit 5 (2011 to 2013) without other common cardiopulmonary causes of dyspnea. Participants were categorized as asymptomatic (76.6%), having known HFpEF (10.3%), and having tertiles of each score among those with ≥moderate, self-reported dyspnea (13.1%). The primary outcome was heart failure (HF) hospitalization or death.

Results: Mean age was 75 ± 5 years, 58% were women, and 22% were black. After a mean follow-up of 5.3 ± 1.2 years, rates of HF hospitalization or death per 1,000 person-years for asymptomatic and known HFpEF were 20.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.9 to 22.7) and 71.6 (95% CI: 61.6 to 83.3), respectively. Among 641 participants with unexplained dyspnea, rates were 27.7 (95% CI: 18.2 to 42.1), 44.9 (95% CI: 34.9 to 57.7), and 47.3 (95% CI: 36.5 to 61.3) (tertiles of H2FPEF score) and 31.8 (95% CI: 20.3 to 49.9), 32.4 (95% CI: 23.4 to 44.9), and 54.3 (95% CI: 43.8 to 67.3) (tertiles of HFA-PEFF score). Participants with unexplained dyspnea and scores above the diagnostic threshold suggested for each algorithm, H2FPEF score ≥6 and HFA-PEFF score ≥5, had equivalent risk of HF hospitalization or death compared with known HFpEF. Among those with unexplained dyspnea, 28% had "discordant" findings (only high risk by 1 algorithm), while 4% were high risk by both.

Conclusions: Participants with unexplained dyspnea and higher H2FPEF or HFA-PEFF scores face substantial risks of HF hospitalization or death. A significant fraction of patients are classified discordantly by using both algorithms.

Keywords: H(2)FPEF score; HFA-PEFF score; diagnosis; heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; hospitalization; mortality; prognosis; risk scores.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:. Histogram of Diagnostic Scores by Symptoms
Percent of participants at each H2FPEF (left) and HFA-PEFF (right) score shown for asymptomatic participants, participants with unexplained dyspnea, and established HFpEF participants. A reference line is drawn in the histograms of participants with unexplained dyspnea to indicate the cutoff above which “high risk” for HFpEF has been suggested. HFpEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
Figure 2:
Figure 2:. Venn Diagram of Participants with Unexplained Dyspnea by Diagnostic Scores
Of the 641 participants with unexplained dyspnea, 435 participants were non-high risk by both scores (H2FPEF<6 and HFA-PEFF<5). By the H2FPEF score, 69 were “high risk” (≥6) and by the HFA-PEFF score, 164 were “high risk” (≥5). 27 participants were “high risk” by both scores.
Figure 3:
Figure 3:. Cumulative Incidence Curves for Adverse Events by H2FPEF Score.
Cumulative incidence curves for each of the study outcomes by symptoms (unexplained dyspnea) and H2FPEF score at Visit 5: 1) asymptomatic; 2) symptomatic and H2FPEF score 1–2; 3) symptomatic and H2FPEF score 3–4; 4) symptomatic and H2FPEF-score ≥5; and 5) known HFpEF. P-value shown for log-rank test.
Figure 4:
Figure 4:. Cumulative Incidence Curves for Adverse Events by HFA-PEFF Score.
Cumulative incidence curves for each of the study outcomes by symptoms (unexplained dyspnea) and HFA-PEFF score at Visit 5: 1) asymptomatic; 2) symptomatic and HFA-PEFF score 0–2; 3) symptomatic and HFA-PEFF score 3; 4) symptomatic and HFA-PEFF score ≥4; and 5) known HFpEF. P-value shown for log-rank test.
Figure 5 (CENTRAL ILLUSTRATION)
Figure 5 (CENTRAL ILLUSTRATION). Incidence Rates for Heart Failure Hospitalization or Death by H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF Scores.
Incidence rates by H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores for the combined outcome for asymptomatic participants, participants with unexplained dyspnea without heart failure, and known HFpEF. HFpEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

Comment in

References

    1. Benjamin EJ, Muntner P, Alonso A et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2019 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. Circulation 2019:CIR0000000000000659. - PubMed
    1. Owan TE, Hodge DO, Herges RM, Jacobsen SJ, Roger VL, Redfield MM. Trends in prevalence and outcome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2006;355:251–9. - PubMed
    1. Oktay AA, Rich JD, Shah SJ. The emerging epidemic of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Curr Heart Fail Rep 2013;10:401–10. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Obokata M, Reddy YNV, Pislaru SV, Melenovsky V, Borlaug BA. Evidence Supporting the Existence of a Distinct Obese Phenotype of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction. Circulation 2017;136:6–19. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pfeffer MA, Shah AM, Borlaug BA. Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction In Perspective. Circ Res 2019;124:1598–1617. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types