Selda Murat, Bektas Murat, Halit Emre Yalvac, Fatih Enes Durmaz, Duygu Inan, Ahmet Celik, Yuksel Cavusoglu
{"title":"HFA-PEFF和H2FPEF评分在确定保留射血分数的心力衰竭的表型和合并症负担中的价值","authors":"Selda Murat, Bektas Murat, Halit Emre Yalvac, Fatih Enes Durmaz, Duygu Inan, Ahmet Celik, Yuksel Cavusoglu","doi":"10.1111/cpf.70019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores are widely used for diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, HFpEF is a heterogeneous condition with multiple phenotypes influenced by comorbidities and etiologies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>This study aimed to evaluate the performance and agreement of these scoring systems across different HFpEF phenotypes and identify additional echocardiographic and clinical parameters that may improve phenotyping.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 194 HFpEF patients were classified into three phenotypes: (1) common metabolic group, (2) atrial fibrillation (AF)-predominant group, and (3) hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy group. The clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic characteristics of these phenotypes were analyzed. The agreement and performance between HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores for phenotypes in HFpEF patients were assessed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 194 HFpEF patients were included. While 92.3% of patients had a high HFA-PEFF score, only 42.8% had a high H2FPEF score. The agreement between these scoring methods was low across all phenotypes. Phenotype-specific differences were observed: interventricular septal thickness was highest in phenotype 3, systolic pulmonary artery pressure (SPAP) was highest in phenotype 2, and left atrial reservoir strain (LASr) and right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain (RV-FWLS) were lowest in phenotype 2.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores showed limited agreement in distinguishing HFpEF phenotypes. Additional echocardiographic parameters such as IVS thickness, SPAP, LASr, and RV-FWLS may enhance phenotypic differentiation and improve HFpEF classification. A more refined diagnostic approach incorporating these parameters could guide personalized treatment strategies.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10504,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging","volume":"45 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The value of the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores in determining the phenotypes and comorbidity burden in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction\",\"authors\":\"Selda Murat, Bektas Murat, Halit Emre Yalvac, Fatih Enes Durmaz, Duygu Inan, Ahmet Celik, Yuksel Cavusoglu\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cpf.70019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>The HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores are widely used for diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, HFpEF is a heterogeneous condition with multiple phenotypes influenced by comorbidities and etiologies.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study aimed to evaluate the performance and agreement of these scoring systems across different HFpEF phenotypes and identify additional echocardiographic and clinical parameters that may improve phenotyping.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 194 HFpEF patients were classified into three phenotypes: (1) common metabolic group, (2) atrial fibrillation (AF)-predominant group, and (3) hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy group. The clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic characteristics of these phenotypes were analyzed. The agreement and performance between HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores for phenotypes in HFpEF patients were assessed.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 194 HFpEF patients were included. While 92.3% of patients had a high HFA-PEFF score, only 42.8% had a high H2FPEF score. The agreement between these scoring methods was low across all phenotypes. Phenotype-specific differences were observed: interventricular septal thickness was highest in phenotype 3, systolic pulmonary artery pressure (SPAP) was highest in phenotype 2, and left atrial reservoir strain (LASr) and right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain (RV-FWLS) were lowest in phenotype 2.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>The HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores showed limited agreement in distinguishing HFpEF phenotypes. Additional echocardiographic parameters such as IVS thickness, SPAP, LASr, and RV-FWLS may enhance phenotypic differentiation and improve HFpEF classification. A more refined diagnostic approach incorporating these parameters could guide personalized treatment strategies.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10504,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging\",\"volume\":\"45 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cpf.70019\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cpf.70019","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The value of the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores in determining the phenotypes and comorbidity burden in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
Background
The HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores are widely used for diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, HFpEF is a heterogeneous condition with multiple phenotypes influenced by comorbidities and etiologies.
Objectives
This study aimed to evaluate the performance and agreement of these scoring systems across different HFpEF phenotypes and identify additional echocardiographic and clinical parameters that may improve phenotyping.
Methods
A total of 194 HFpEF patients were classified into three phenotypes: (1) common metabolic group, (2) atrial fibrillation (AF)-predominant group, and (3) hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy group. The clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic characteristics of these phenotypes were analyzed. The agreement and performance between HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores for phenotypes in HFpEF patients were assessed.
Results
A total of 194 HFpEF patients were included. While 92.3% of patients had a high HFA-PEFF score, only 42.8% had a high H2FPEF score. The agreement between these scoring methods was low across all phenotypes. Phenotype-specific differences were observed: interventricular septal thickness was highest in phenotype 3, systolic pulmonary artery pressure (SPAP) was highest in phenotype 2, and left atrial reservoir strain (LASr) and right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain (RV-FWLS) were lowest in phenotype 2.
Conclusion
The HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores showed limited agreement in distinguishing HFpEF phenotypes. Additional echocardiographic parameters such as IVS thickness, SPAP, LASr, and RV-FWLS may enhance phenotypic differentiation and improve HFpEF classification. A more refined diagnostic approach incorporating these parameters could guide personalized treatment strategies.
期刊介绍：
Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging publishes reports on clinical and experimental research pertinent to human physiology in health and disease. The scope of the Journal is very broad, covering all aspects of the regulatory system in the cardiovascular, renal and pulmonary systems with special emphasis on methodological aspects. The focus for the journal is, however, work that has potential clinical relevance. The Journal also features review articles on recent front-line research within these fields of interest.
Covered by the major abstracting services including Current Contents and Science Citation Index, Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging plays an important role in providing effective and productive communication among clinical physiologists world-wide.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
