Prediction of functional capacity by the HFA-PEFF score in patients with acute decompensated heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a post-hoc analysis from the PURSUIT-HFpEF registry

Abstract

Abstract Background Diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is still challenging, and the H2FPEF- and the HFA-PEFF score were proposed as simple and reliable diagnostic tools. We recently reported that the HFA-PEFF score was significantly associated with the composite endpoint of all-cause death and heart failure readmission in patients with acute decompensated HFpEF (Sotomi. Eur J Heart Fail, in press). Purpose To investigate the relation whether the HFA-PEFF or H2FPEF score can evaluate functional capacity in patients with HFpEF Methods We calculated H2FPEF score and the second step of HFA-PEFF score among the registered patients in the PURSUIT-HFpEF (Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study of Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction) study, which is a multicenter registration of patients hospitalized for acute decompensated HFpEF. We performed 6 minute walk (6MW) test and measured NT-proBNP before discharge. We followed the study patients for median of 360 days (IQR 237–630 days) to observe the major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; composite of death, heart failure hospitalization and stroke). Results We enrolled 757 patients (age 81±9 years, male gender 45%) hospitalized for acute decompensated HFpEF for the present study. The H2FPEF score was obtained in 588 (77.7%) patients and all patients had ≥2 points. The HFA-PEFF score was obtained in 615 (81.2%) patients, though global longitudinal strain was not available. We divided these patients into 3 groups based on the HFA-PEFF score (score 2 to 4, 5, and 6) or on the H2FPEF score (score 0 to 3, 4 to 5 and 6 to 8). There were a significant difference in NT-pro BNP between 3 groups based on HFA-PEFF score (p=0.01, Table 1), and patients with score 6 had significantly higher NT-proBNP than those with score 2 to 4 (p=0.02). A significant difference was observed in 6MW distance among these groups (p=0.04, Table), and those with score 6 had significantly shorter distance than those with score 2 to 4 (p=0.04). Cox proportional hazard model selected HFA-PEFF score as a significant predictor for MACE, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated that classification of HFA-PEFF score significantly stratified the patients' risk for MACE. On the other hand, there was no significant difference in 6MW distance among 3 groups based on H2FPEF score (p=0.53), and H2FPEF score was not an independent predictor for MCE by the Cox model analysis. Moreover, the lowest H2PEF score group had higher NT-proBNP than other 2 groups (p=0.02) Conclusions The HFA-PEFF score predicted functional capacity as well as prognosis in patients hospitalized for HFpEF, while the H2PEF score did not. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Table 1