학술논문
Evaluation of the HFA‐PEFF Score: results from the prospective DIAST‐CHF cohort
Document Type
Clinical report
Author
Source
ESC Heart Failure. December 2022, Vol. 9 Issue 6, p4120, 9 p.
Subject
Language
English
Abstract
Introduction Patients suffering from heart failure (HF) account for nearly 1–2% of the adult population in developed countries, rising up to ≥10% among people above 70 years of age with [...]
: Aims: Although the number of patients suffering from heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) increases, the routine diagnosis remains a challenge. In the absence of a pathognomonic sign for HFpEF or specific treatment strategies, a prognosis‐based characterization of suspected patients remains promising for both the risk stratification of the patients and a disease definition. The Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology has introduced an algorithm with different levels of likelihood regarding the diagnosis of HFpEF, the HFA‐PEFF score. We aimed to evaluate the predictive value of this algorithm in a large cohort regarding mortality, symptom burden, and the functional status. Methods and results: DIAST‐CHF is a multicentre, population‐based, prospective, observational study in subjects with at least one risk factor for HFpEF between the age of 50 and 85. We calculated the HFA‐PEFF score (n = 1668) and analysed the risk groups for overall mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, and submaximal functional capacity (6‐min walk distance) at baseline and after a follow‐up period of 10 years. Patients with high HFA‐PEFF score values 5&6 showed a higher mortality than those with an intermediate score (score values 2–4) and low score values (high 21.3% vs. intermediate 10.1% vs. low 4.3%, P < 0.001). Also, the burden of MACE (death, cardiovascular hospitalization, new myocardial infarction, first diagnosis of HF) was increased in the high score values group (high 40.7% vs. intermediate 25.9% vs. low 13.9%, P < 0.001). Similarly, patients with higher scores had higher cumulative incidences of cardiovascular hospitalizations (P = 0.011). Subjects with higher scores also had lower 6‐min walk distance both at baseline and during follow‐up. Conclusions: The HFA‐PEFF score provides a reliable instrument to stratify suspected HFpEF patients by their risk for mortality, symptom burden, and functional status in cohort at risk with a follow‐up period of 10 years. As high HFA‐PEFF scores are associated with worse outcome, the HFA‐PEFF algorithm describes a defining approach towards HFpEF.
: Aims: Although the number of patients suffering from heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) increases, the routine diagnosis remains a challenge. In the absence of a pathognomonic sign for HFpEF or specific treatment strategies, a prognosis‐based characterization of suspected patients remains promising for both the risk stratification of the patients and a disease definition. The Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology has introduced an algorithm with different levels of likelihood regarding the diagnosis of HFpEF, the HFA‐PEFF score. We aimed to evaluate the predictive value of this algorithm in a large cohort regarding mortality, symptom burden, and the functional status. Methods and results: DIAST‐CHF is a multicentre, population‐based, prospective, observational study in subjects with at least one risk factor for HFpEF between the age of 50 and 85. We calculated the HFA‐PEFF score (n = 1668) and analysed the risk groups for overall mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, and submaximal functional capacity (6‐min walk distance) at baseline and after a follow‐up period of 10 years. Patients with high HFA‐PEFF score values 5&6 showed a higher mortality than those with an intermediate score (score values 2–4) and low score values (high 21.3% vs. intermediate 10.1% vs. low 4.3%, P < 0.001). Also, the burden of MACE (death, cardiovascular hospitalization, new myocardial infarction, first diagnosis of HF) was increased in the high score values group (high 40.7% vs. intermediate 25.9% vs. low 13.9%, P < 0.001). Similarly, patients with higher scores had higher cumulative incidences of cardiovascular hospitalizations (P = 0.011). Subjects with higher scores also had lower 6‐min walk distance both at baseline and during follow‐up. Conclusions: The HFA‐PEFF score provides a reliable instrument to stratify suspected HFpEF patients by their risk for mortality, symptom burden, and functional status in cohort at risk with a follow‐up period of 10 years. As high HFA‐PEFF scores are associated with worse outcome, the HFA‐PEFF algorithm describes a defining approach towards HFpEF.