Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparing diagnostic tools for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction across community and clinical cohorts
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparing diagnostic tools for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction across community and clinical cohorts
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparing diagnostic tools for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction across community and clinical cohorts
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparing diagnostic tools for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction across community and clinical cohorts
2025
Overview
BackgroundDiagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains challenging, particularly in older adults. While the Heart Failure Association (HFA)-PEFF and H2FPEF Scores offer structured diagnostic approaches, their clinical utility is still debated. This study aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of HFpEF Scores versus inclusion criteria used in sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) trials, age-adjusted N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) thresholds and the universal definition of heart failure (HF).MethodsDiagnostic tools were assessed using sex-weighted and age-weighted propensity score adjustment in individuals aged 60–80 years from two established HFpEF cohorts (MEtabolic Road to DIAstolic Heart Failure (MEDIA), n=297; Karolinska-Rennes (KaRen), n=174) and two community-based cohorts without HF (Suivi Temporaire Annuel Non-Invasif de la Santé des Lorrains Assurés Sociaux (STANISLAS), n=461; Malmö, n=1030).ResultsHFA-PEFF and H2FPEF Scores classified a large proportion of participants in both community-based cohorts (up to 81% in Malmö) and HFpEF cohorts (up to 75% in MEDIA) in the intermediate-likelihood category, requiring further diagnostic evaluation. Their diagnostic discrimination ranged from moderate to good. The universal definition of HF, SGLT2i trial criteria and NT-proBNP age-adjusted thresholds showed diagnostic performance comparable to HFA-PEFF Scores in the HFpEF cohorts and correctly excluded almost all individuals in the community cohorts. The universal definition of HF demonstrated a diagnostic discrimination higher than H2FPEF and comparable to HFA-PEFF, with the most balanced performance in terms of sensitivity and specificity.ConclusionsUsing scores, a substantial proportion of HFpEF individuals fall into the intermediate likelihood category, highlighting diagnostic uncertainty. Simpler tools, such as the universal definition of HF, demonstrate comparable or even superior diagnostic and rule-out performances for HFpEF, emphasising the need for more practical and reliable approaches to HFpEF diagnosis.
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Cardiovascular Society,BMJ Publishing Group LTD,BMJ Publishing Group
