Prognostic Applications of Current Clinical Scores in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Fernando Colares Barros, Jéssica Cristina de Cezaro, Pietro Donelli Costa, Giovanni Donelli Costa, Angela Barreto Santiago Santos, Eduardo Gatti Pianca, Willian Roberto Menegazzo, Fernando Luís Scolari, Anderson Donelli da Silveira
{"title":"Prognostic Applications of Current Clinical Scores in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Prospective Cohort Study.","authors":"Fernando Colares Barros, Jéssica Cristina de Cezaro, Pietro Donelli Costa, Giovanni Donelli Costa, Angela Barreto Santiago Santos, Eduardo Gatti Pianca, Willian Roberto Menegazzo, Fernando Luís Scolari, Anderson Donelli da Silveira","doi":"10.36660/abc.20240852","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores were developed to support the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and may also help predict cardiovascular outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the prognostic value of these scores in a cohort of individuals with HFpEF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Brazil between March 2019 and December 2021. After clinical evaluation, echocardiography, and exercise testing, the H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores were calculated. Patients were classified into intermediate probability groups (H2FPEF: 2-5 points; HFA-PEFF: 2-4 points) and high probability groups (H2FPEF >5 points; HFA-PEFF >4 points). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalizations due to HFpEF. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 103 patients were followed for an average of 888 days (±291). The mean age was 69 years (±8.3), and 61% were women. Twenty-seven patients (26.2%) experienced primary outcomes, totaling 32 events-11 deaths and 21 hospitalizations due to HFpEF. In the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, the H2FPEF score showed better predictive ability for the outcomes (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.637, 95% CI: 0.518-0.756, p=0.035) compared to the HFA-PEFF score (AUC: 0.572, 95% CI: 0.448-0.696, p=0.270). In the Kaplan-Meier analysis, high-probability classification by both scores was significantly associated with the occurrence of outcomes (log-rank p=0.034), compared to the intermediate score group or patients with differing classifications between the two scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The H2FPEF score showed better performance than the HFA-PEFF score in predicting outcomes in patients with HFpEF. Findings from this contemporary study conducted in Brazil contribute to risk stratification in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":93887,"journal":{"name":"Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia","volume":"122 6","pages":"e20240852"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12212386/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36660/abc.20240852","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores were developed to support the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and may also help predict cardiovascular outcomes.

Objective: To assess the prognostic value of these scores in a cohort of individuals with HFpEF.

Methods: This prospective study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Brazil between March 2019 and December 2021. After clinical evaluation, echocardiography, and exercise testing, the H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores were calculated. Patients were classified into intermediate probability groups (H2FPEF: 2-5 points; HFA-PEFF: 2-4 points) and high probability groups (H2FPEF >5 points; HFA-PEFF >4 points). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalizations due to HFpEF. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.

Results: A total of 103 patients were followed for an average of 888 days (±291). The mean age was 69 years (±8.3), and 61% were women. Twenty-seven patients (26.2%) experienced primary outcomes, totaling 32 events-11 deaths and 21 hospitalizations due to HFpEF. In the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, the H2FPEF score showed better predictive ability for the outcomes (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.637, 95% CI: 0.518-0.756, p=0.035) compared to the HFA-PEFF score (AUC: 0.572, 95% CI: 0.448-0.696, p=0.270). In the Kaplan-Meier analysis, high-probability classification by both scores was significantly associated with the occurrence of outcomes (log-rank p=0.034), compared to the intermediate score group or patients with differing classifications between the two scores.

Conclusions: The H2FPEF score showed better performance than the HFA-PEFF score in predicting outcomes in patients with HFpEF. Findings from this contemporary study conducted in Brazil contribute to risk stratification in clinical practice.

当前临床评分在保留射血分数的心力衰竭中的预后应用:一项前瞻性队列研究。
背景:开发H2FPEF和HFA-PEFF评分是为了支持保留射血分数(HFpEF)心力衰竭的诊断,也可能有助于预测心血管结局。目的:评估这些评分在HFpEF患者队列中的预后价值。方法:这项前瞻性研究于2019年3月至2021年12月在巴西一家三级医院进行。经临床评估、超声心动图和运动试验后,计算H2FPEF和HFA-PEFF评分。将患者分为中概率组(H2FPEF: 2-5分;HFA-PEFF: 2-4分)和高概率组(H2FPEF >5分;HFA-PEFF b> 4分)。主要结局是由HFpEF引起的全因死亡率和住院率的综合结果。结果:共103例患者,平均随访888天(±291天)。平均年龄69岁(±8.3岁),61%为女性。27名患者(26.2%)经历了主要结局,共有32个事件——11例死亡和21例因HFpEF住院。在受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线分析中,H2FPEF评分对预后的预测能力(曲线下面积[AUC]: 0.637, 95% CI: 0.518-0.756, p=0.035)优于HFA-PEFF评分(AUC: 0.572, 95% CI: 0.448-0.696, p=0.270)。在Kaplan-Meier分析中,与中间评分组或两种评分之间不同分类的患者相比,两种评分的高概率分类与结果的发生显著相关(log-rank p=0.034)。结论:H2FPEF评分在预测HFpEF患者预后方面优于HFA-PEFF评分。这项在巴西进行的当代研究结果有助于临床实践中的风险分层。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信