Search

Background: An overview of the diagnostic performance of natriuretic peptides (NPs) for the detection of diastolic dysfunction (DD) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), in a non-acute setting, is currently lacking., Methods: We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase.com (May 13, 2019). Studies were included when they (1) reported diagnostic performance measures, (2) are for the detection of DD or HFpEF in a non-acute setting, (3) are compared with a control group without DD or HFpEF or with patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, (4) are in a cross-sectional design. Two investigators independently assessed risk of bias of the included studies according to the QUADAS-2 checklist. Results were meta-analysed when three or more studies reported a similar diagnostic measure., Results: From 11,728 titles/abstracts, we included 51 studies. The meta-analysis indicated a reasonable diagnostic performance for both NPs for the detection of DD and HFpEF based on AUC values of approximately 0.80 (0.73-0.87; I 2  = 86%). For both NPs, sensitivity was lower than specificity for the detection of DD and HFpEF: approximately 65% (51-85%; I 2  = 95%) versus 80% (70-90%; I 2  = 97%), respectively. Both NPs have adequate ability to rule out DD: negative predictive value of approximately 85% (78-93%; I 2  = 95%). The ability of both NPs to prove DD is lower: positive predictive value of approximately 60% (30-90%; I 2  = 99%)., Conclusion: The diagnostic performance of NPs for the detection of DD and HFpEF is reasonable. However, they may be used to rule out DD or HFpEF, and not for the diagnosis of DD or HFpEF.

Aim: Diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the non‐acute setting remains challenging. Natriuretic peptides have limited value for this purpose, and a multitude of studies investigating novel diagnostic circulating biomarkers have not resulted in their implementation. This review aims to provide an overview of studies investigating novel circulating biomarkers for the diagnosis of HFpEF and determine their risk of bias (ROB). Methods and results: A systematic literature search for studies investigating novel diagnostic HFpEF circulating biomarkers in humans was performed up until 21 April 2020. Those without diagnostic performance measures reported, or performed in an acute heart failure population were excluded, leading to a total of 28 studies. For each study, four reviewers determined the ROB within the QUADAS‐2 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. At least one domain with a high ROB was present in all studies. Use of case‐control/two‐gated designs, exclusion of difficult‐to‐diagnose patients, absence of a pre‐specified cut‐off value for the index test without the performance of external validation, the use of inappropriate reference standards and unclear timing of the index test and/or reference standard were the main bias determinants. Due to the high ROB and different patient populations, no meta‐analysis was performed. Conclusion: The majority of current diagnostic HFpEF biomarker studies have a high ROB, reducing the reproducibility and the potential for clinical care. Methodological well‐designed studies with a uniform reference diagnosis are urgently needed to determine the incremental value of circulating biomarkers for the diagnosis of HFpEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]