Search

Abstract Aims Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) can be challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the potential of a webtool to enhance the scoring accuracy when applying the complex HFA‐PEFF and H2FPEF algorithms, which are commonly used for diagnosing HFpEF. Methods and results We developed an online tool, the HFpEF calculator, that enables the automatic calculation of current HFpEF algorithms. We assessed the accuracy of manual vs. automatic scoring, defined as the percentage of correct scores, in a cohort of cardiologists with varying clinical experience. Cardiologists scored eight online clinical cases using a triple cross‐over design (i.e. two manual–two automatic–two manual–two automatic). Data were analysed in study completers (n = 55, 29% heart failure specialists, 42% general cardiologists, and 29% cardiology residents). Manually calculated scores were correct in 50% (HFA‐PEFF: 50% [50–75]; H2FPEF: 50% [38–50]). Correct scoring improved to 100% using the HFpEF calculator (HFA‐PEFF: 100% [88–100], P

Abstract Aims Heart failure (HF) represents a clinical syndrome resulting from different aetiologies and degrees of heart diseases. Among these, a key role is played by primary heart muscle disease (cardiomyopathies), which are the combination of multifactorial environmental insults in the presence or absence of a known genetic predisposition. The aim of the Maastricht Cardiomyopathy registry (mCMP‐registry; NCT04976348) is to improve (early) diagnosis, risk stratification, and management of cardiomyopathy phenotypes beyond the limits of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods and results The mCMP‐registry is an investigator‐initiated prospective registry including patient characteristics, diagnostic measurements performed as part of routine clinical care, treatment information, sequential biobanking, quality of life and economic impact assessment, and regular follow‐up. All subjects aged ≥16 years referred to the cardiology department of the Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+) for HF‐like symptoms or cardiac screening for cardiomyopathies are eligible for inclusion, irrespective of phenotype or underlying causes. Informed consented subjects will be followed up for 15 years. Two central approaches will be used to answer the research questions related to the aims of this registry: (i) a data‐driven approach to predict clinical outcome and response to therapy and to identify clusters of patients who share underlying pathophysiological processes; and (ii) a hypothesis‐driven approach in which clinical parameters are tested for their (incremental) diagnostic, prognostic, or therapeutic value. The study allows other centres to easily join this initiative, which will further boost research within this field. Conclusions The broad inclusion criteria, systematic routine clinical care data‐collection, extensive study‐related data‐collection, sequential biobanking, and multi‐disciplinary approach gives the mCMP‐registry a unique opportunity to improve diagnosis, risk stratification, and management of HF and (early) cardiomyopathy phenotypes beyond the LVEF limits.

Abstract Aims Whether and how iron deficiency (ID) impacts patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remain unclear. The aim of our study was to investigate the impact of ID on functional status, exercise capacity, and prognosis in HFpEF. Methods and results The study population consisted of 300 HFpEF patients. ID was defined as serum ferritin

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a condition with increasing incidence, leading to a health care problem of epidemic proportions for which no curative treatments exist. Consequently, an urge exists to better understand the pathophysiology of HFpEF. Accumulating evidence suggests a key pathophysiological role for coronary microvascular dysfunction (MVD), with an underlying mechanism of low-grade pro-inflammatory state caused by systemic comorbidities. The systemic entity of comorbidities and inflammation in HFpEF imply that patients develop HFpEF due to systemic mechanisms causing coronary MVD, or systemic MVD. The absence or presence of peripheral MVD in HFpEF would reflect HFpEF being predominantly a cardiac or a systemic disease. Here, we will review the current state of the art of cardiac and systemic microvascular dysfunction in HFpEF (Graphical Abstract), resulting in future perspectives on new diagnostic modalities and therapeutic strategies.

Aims: Diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is challenging. The newly proposed HFA-PEFF algorithm entails a stepwise approach. Step 1, typically performed in the ambulatory setting, establishes a pre-test likelihood. The second step calculates a score based on echocardiography and natriuretic peptides. The aim of this study is to validate the diagnostic value and establish the clinical impact of the second step of the HFA-PEFF score.Methods and Results: The second step of the HFA-PEFF score was evaluated in two independent, prospective cohorts, i.e. the Maastricht cohort (228 HFpEF patients and 42 controls) and the Northwestern Chicago cohort (459 HFpEF patients). In Maastricht, the HFA-PEFF score categorizes 11 (4%) of the total cohort with suspected HFpEF in the low-likelihood (0-1 points) and 161 (60%) in the high-likelihood category (5-6 points). A high HFA-PEFF score can rule in HFpEF with high specificity (93%) and positive predictive value (98%). A low score can rule out HFpEF with a sensitivity of 99% and a negative predictive value of 73%. The diagnostic accuracy of the score is 0.90 (0.84-0.96), by the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve. However, 98 (36%) are classified in the intermediate-likelihood category, where additional testing is advised. The distribution of the score shows a similar pattern in the Northwestern (Chicago) and Maastricht HFpEF patients (53% vs. 65% high, 43% vs. 34% intermediate, 4.8% vs. 1.3% low).Conclusion: This study validates and characterizes the HFA-PEFF score in two independent, well phenotyped cohorts. We demonstrate that the HFA-PEFF score is helpful in clinical practice for the diagnosis of HFpEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with an assigned H SB 2 sb FPEF category higher than their assigned HFA-PEFF category (H SB 2 sb FPEF > HFA-PEFF) most often suffered from AF (82.0% vs. 14.0% and 61%, I P i < 0.001) and had the highest BMI (33.5 ± 6.5 vs. 27.9 ± 4.9 and 31.0 ± 6.1, I P i < 0.001). The HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores largely disagree in classifying patients with suspected heart failure with preserved ejection fraction The H SB 2 sb FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores have recently been proposed to solve the clinical dilemma of diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).1,2 The H SB 2 sb FPEF score includes four clinical [age, body mass index (BMI), atrial fibrillation (AF) and hypertension] and two echocardiographic items (E/e' and right ventricular pressure). [Extracted from the article]

Aims: This study assessed the prognostic implications of mechanical atrial dysfunction in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients with different stages of atrial fibrillation (AF) in detail., Methods and Results: HFpEF patients (n = 258) systemically underwent an extensive clinical characterization, including 24-h Holter monitoring and speckle-tracking echocardiography. Patients were categorized according to rhythm and stages of AF: 112 with no history of AF (no AF), 56 with paroxysmal AF (PAF), and 90 with sustained (persistent/permanent) AF (SAF). A progressive decrease in mechanical atrial function was seen: left atrial reservoir strain (LASr) 30.5 ± 10.5% (no AF), 22.3 ± 10.5% (PAF), and 13.9 ± 7.8% (SAF), P < 0.001. Independent predictors for lower LASr values were AF, absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, higher N-terminal-pro hormone B-type natriuretic peptide, left atrial volume index, and relative wall thickness, lower left ventricular global longitudinal strain, and echocardiographic signs of elevated left ventricular filling pressure. LASr was an independent predictor of adverse outcome (hazard ratio per 1% decrease =1.049, 95% confidence interval 1.014-1.085, P = 0.006), whereas AF was not when the multivariable model included LASr. Moreover, LASr mediated the adverse outcome associated with AF in HFpEF (P = 0.008)., Conclusion: Mechanical atrial dysfunction has a possible greater prognostic role in HFpEF compared to AF status alone. Mechanical atrial dysfunction is a predictor of adverse outcome independently of AF presence or stage, and may be an underlying mechanism (mediator) for the worse outcome associated with AF in HFpEF. This may suggest mechanical atrial dysfunction plays a crucial role in disease progression in HFpEF patients with AF, and possibly also in HFpEF patients without AF., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

The diversity in clinical phenotypes and poor understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is the main reason why no effective treatments have been found yet. Targeted, instead of one size fits all, treatment seems the only promising approach for treating HFpEF. To be able to design a targeted, phenotype-specific HFpEF treatment, the matrix relating clinical phenotypes and underlying pathophysiological mechanisms has to be clarified. This review discusses the opportunities for additional evaluation of the underlying pathophysiological processes, e.g., to evaluate biological phenotypes on top of clinical routine, to guide us toward a phenotype-specific HFpEF treatment. Moreover, a translational approach with matchmaking of animal models to biological HFpEF phenotypes will be a valuable step to test the effectiveness of novel, targeted interventions in HFpEF. Listen to this article's corresponding podcast at https://ajpheart.podbean.com/e/personalized-medicine-in-hfpef/ .