High H2FPEF Score Research Articles

Heart failure risk assessment in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy based on the H2FPEF score.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the H2FPEF score, which was developed to improve the diagnosis of heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction, is associated with HF outcomes in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Patients with HCM and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≥50%) were included from a multicentre registry and the H2FPEF score was calculated. Patients were divided into three groups: low (0-1), intermediate (2-5) and high (6-9) H2FPEF score. The primary combined endpoint was a composite of all-cause death and HF admissions, while the secondary endpoints were all-cause death and HF admissions separately. A total of 955 patients were included (age 51 ± 17 years, 310 [32.5%] female). Patients with a high H2FPEF score (n = 105) were more often female, and presented with more symptoms and comorbidities. On echocardiography, patients with a high H2FPEF score had lower LVEF, more impaired diastolic function and more frequently left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. During follow-up (median 90 months [interquartile range 49-176]), 103 (11%) patients died and 57 (6%) patients had a first HF hospitalization. Event-free survival rate for the primary combined and secondary endpoints was lower for patients with an intermediate and high H2FPEF score. On multivariate Cox regression analysis, female sex (hazard ratio [HR] 1.670, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.157-2.410; p = 0.006), Asian ethnicity (HR 6.711, 95% CI 4.076-11.048; p < 0.001), ischaemic heart disease (HR 1.732, 95% CI 1.133-2.650; p = 0.011), left atrial diameter (HR 1.028, 95% CI 1.005-1.051; p = 0.016) and intermediate (HR 2.757, 95% CI 1.612-4.713; p < 0.001) or high H2FPEF score (HR 3.689, 95% CI 1.908-7.134; p < 0.001) were independently associated with the primary combined endpoint. The H2FPEF score is independently associated with HF outcome in patients with HCM and may be considered for risk stratification.

Utility and Validity of the HFA-PEFF andH2FPEF Scores in Patients With Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation.

Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) represents a significant clinical challenge. Two diagnostic scoring tools have been developed to aid the noninvasive diagnosis of HFpEF: the HFA-PEFF (Heart Failure Association Pre-test assessment, Echocardiography and natriuretic peptide, Functional testing, Final etiology) and the H2FPEF scoring systems. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of these 2 scoring tools for the diagnosis of HFpEF against a gold standard of invasive evaluation in a cohort of patients with AF. The authors recruited consecutive patients with symptomatic AF and preserved ejection fraction who were scheduled for an AF ablation procedure. Gold-standard invasive diagnosis of HFpEF was performed at the AF ablation procedure using mean left atrial pressure at rest and following infusion of 500mL fluid. Each participant was scored according to the noninvasive HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scoring systems. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed to assess the accuracy of these scoring systems in diagnosing HFpEF. In total, 120 participants were recruited. HFpEF was diagnosed invasively in 88 (73.3%) participants, whereas 32 (26.7%) had no HFpEF. Using the HFA-PEFF score, 38 (31.7%) participants had a high probability of HFpEF and 82(68.3%) had low/intermediate probability of HFpEF. Using the H2FPEF tool, 72 (60%) participants had a high probability of HFpEF and 48 (40%) had intermediate probability. A high HFA-PEFF (≥5 points) score could diagnose HFpEF with a sensitivity of 40% and a specificity of 91%, and a high H2FPEF score (≥6 points) could diagnose HFpEFwith a sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 66%. Overall diagnostic accuracy was similar using both tools (AUC:0.663 vs 0.707, respectively; P = 0.636). Against a gold standard of invasively diagnosed HFpEF, the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores demonstrate only moderate accuracy in patients with AF and should be utilized with caution in this cohort of patients. (Characterising Left Atrial Function and Compliance in Atrial Fibrillation; ACTRN12620000639921).

Long-term prognostic value of the H2FPEF score in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

A considerable proportion of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have underlying heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), which can be challenging for diagnosis because significant valvular heart disease should be excluded before diagnosing HFpEF. This study investigated the long-term prognostic value of the pre-procedural H2FPEF score in patients with preserved ejection fraction (EF) undergoing TAVI. Patients who underwent TAVI between October 2013 and May 2017 were enrolled from the Optimized CathEter vAlvular iNtervention-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Japanese multicentre registry. After excluding 914 patients, 1674 patients with preserved EF≥50% (median age: 85years, 72% female) were selected for calculation of the H2FPEF score and were dichotomized into two groups: the low H2FPEF score [0-5 points; n=1399 (83.6%)] group and the high H2FPEF score [6-9 points; n=275 (16.4%)] group. Patients with high H2FPEF scores were associated with a higher prevalence of New York Heart Association Functional Class III/IV (59.3% vs. 43.7%, P<0.001), diabetes (24.4% vs. 18.5%, P=0.03), and paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis (15.9% vs. 6.2%, P<0.001). These patients showed worse prognoses than those with low H2FPEF scores regarding the cumulative 2year all-cause mortality (26.3% vs. 15.5%, log-rank P<0.001), cardiovascular mortality (10.5% vs. 5.4%, log-rank P<0.001), HF hospitalization (16.2% vs. 6.7%, log-rank P<0.001), and the composite endpoint of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization (23.8% vs. 10.8%, log-rank P<0.001). After adjustment for several confounders, the high H2FPEF scores were independently associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.48; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09-2.00; P=0.011] and for the composite endpoint of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization (adjusted HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.38-2.74; P<0.001). Subgroup analysis confirmed the excess risk of high H2FPEF scores relative to low H2FPEF scores for the composite endpoint of cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalization increased with a lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score (STS score <8%: adjusted HR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.50-3.85; P<0.001; STS score ≥8%: adjusted HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.79-2.28; P=0.28; Pinteraction=0.030). The H2FPEF score is useful for predicting long-term adverse outcomes after TAVI, including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and HF hospitalization for patients with preserved EF. More aggressive interventions targeting HFpEF in addition to the TAVI procedure might be relevant in patients with high H2FPEF scores, particularly in those with a lower surgical risk.

Cardiac dysfunction rather than aortic valve stenosis severity drives exercise intolerance and adverse haemodynamics.

To study the impact of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) vs. aortic stenosis (AS) lesion severity on left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction, left atrial (LA) dysfunction, haemodynamics, and exercise capacity. Patients (n = 206) with at least moderate AS (aortic valve area ≤0.85 cm/m2) and discordant symptoms underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing with simultaneous echocardiography. The population was stratified according to the probability of underlying HFpEF by the heavy, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary hypertension, elder, filling pressure (H2FPEF) score [0-5 (AS/HFpEF-) vs. 6-9 points (AS/HFpEF+)] and AS severity (Moderate vs. Severe). Mean age was 73 ± 10 years with 40% women. Twenty-eight patients had Severe AS/HFpEF+ (14%), 111 Severe AS/HFpEF- (54%), 13 Moderate AS/HFpEF+ (6%), and 54 Moderate AS/HFpEF- (26%). AS/HFpEF+ vs. AS/HFpEF- patients, irrespective of AS severity, had a lower LV global longitudinal strain, impaired diastolic function, reduced LV compliance, and more pronounced LA dysfunction. The pulmonary arterial pressure-cardiac output slope was significantly higher in AS/HFpEF+ vs. AS/HFpEF- (5.4 ± 3.1 vs. 3.9 ± 2.2 mmHg/L/min, respectively; P = 0.003), mainly driven by impaired cardiac output and chronotropic reserve, with signs of right ventricular pulmonary arterial uncoupling. AS/HFpEF+ vs. AS/HFpEF- was associated with a lower peak aerobic capacity (11.5 ± 3.7 vs. 15.9 ± 5.9 mL/min/kg, respectively; P < 0.0001) but did not differ between Moderate and Severe AS (14.7 ± 5.5 vs. 15.2 ± 5.9 mL/min/kg, respectively; P = 0.6). A high H2FPEF score is associated with a reduced exercise capacity and adverse haemodynamics in patients with moderate to severe AS. Both exercise performance and haemodynamics correspond better with intrinsic cardiac dysfunction than AS severity.

Effect of diabetes mellitus on association between galectin-3 and H2FPEF score in patients with unexplained dyspnea and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of diabetes mellitus (DM) on the association between Galectin-3 (Gal-3) and the H2FPEF score in patients with unexplained dyspnea and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). A cross-sectional observational study was conducted on patients with unexplained dyspnea and a preserved LVEF in the Cardiology Department of Elazıg Medical Park Hospital, Turkey. The patients were evaluated based on the presence of DM and the H2FPEF score. Gal-3 levels were compared between groups, and the effect of DM on Gal-3 was assessed. The level of statistical significance in all tests was set at p < .05. Gal-3 and H2FPEF scores were higher in patients with DM (p < .001 and p = .027, respectively). Gal-3 and HbA1C values were elevated in patients with moderate to high H2FPEF scores (p < .01 and p = .036, respectively). DM and Hypertension were more prevalent in patients with moderate to high H2FPEF scores (p = 0.024, p < 0.001, respectively). A strong correlation was observed between Gal-3 and the H2FPEF score (r = 0.375, p < .001). Gal-3 could predict patients with a moderate to high H2FPEF score using a cut-off value of 14.7, with a sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 67% (AUC: 0.702). Gal-3 serves as an independent predictor of the H2FPEF score in the presence of DM, and the diagnostic capability of Gal-3 for Heart Failure with preserved LVEF remains unaffected by DM.

Cardiac dysfunction rather than aortic valve stenosis severity drives exercise intolerance and adverse hemodynamics

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Aortic valve stenosis (AS) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) present with similar cardiac alterations, but their overlap is poorly understood.(1–3). Purpose To study left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction, left atrial (LA) dysfunction, hemodynamics, and exercise capacity according to HFpEF status versus AS severity. Methods Patients (n=206) with at least moderate AS (aortic valve area ≤0.85 cm2/m2) and discordant symptoms underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing with simultaneous echocardiography. The population was stratified according to the probability of underlying HFpEF by the H2FPEF score [0–5 (AS/HFpEF-) vs. 6–9 points (AS/HFpEF+)] and AS severity (Moderate vs. Severe). Results Mean age was 73±10 years with 40% women. Stratification yielded 41 AS/HFpEF+ (20%) versus 165 AS/HFpEF- (80%) and 139 Severe (67%) versus 67 Moderate (33%) AS patients. AS/HFpEF+ patients had a lower LV global longitudinal strain, impaired diastolic function, reduced LV compliance, and more pronounced LA dysfunction compared to AS/HFpEF- patients. The mean pulmonary arterial pressure-cardiac output (mPAP/CO) slope was significantly higher in AS/HFpEF+ versus AS/HFpEF- (5.4±3.1 vs. 3.9±2.2 mmHg/L/min, respectively; p = 0.003), mainly driven by impaired cardiac output (CO) reserve and chronotropic incompetence, with signs of right ventricular-pulmonary arterial (RV-PA) uncoupling. AS/HFpEF+ versus AS/HFpEF- was associated with a lower peak aerobic capacity (11.5±3.7 vs. 15.9±5.9 mL/min/kg, respectively; p&amp;lt;0.0001), but did not differ between Moderate and Severe AS (14.7±5.5 vs. 15.2±5.9mL/min/kg, respectively; p = 0.6). Conclusions A high H2FPEF score is associated with a reduced exercise capacity and adverse hemodynamics in patients with moderate to severe AS. Both exercise performance and hemodynamics correspond better with intrinsic cardiac dysfunction than AS severity itself.

Idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension patients with a high H2FPEF-score: Insights from the Amsterdam UMC PAH-cohort.

The idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (iPAH) phenotype is changing from a predominantly young female patient to an older, frequently obese patient of either sex. Many newly diagnosed iPAH-patients have risk factors for left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD), possibly affecting management and treatment. To determine whether the H2FPEF-score identifies a subgroup of iPAH-patients with blunted response to PAH-targeted treatment. We performed a retrospective analysis of 253 treatment-naïve iPAH-patients (1989-2019) with a confirmed diagnosis after right heart catheterization by a multidisciplinary team. Follow-up RHC measurements were available in 150 iPAH-patients. iPAH-patients were stratified by the H2FPEF-score; a score ≥5 identified a higher possibility of (concealed) LVDD. The presence of a high H2FPEF-score in incident iPAH-patients rose 30% in thirty years. Patients with a H2FPEF-score ≥5 were older, more often male and/or obese, and had more comorbidities than patients with a H2FPEF-score ≤1. A high H2FPEF-score was associated with worse survival and poor functional capacity. Right ventricular function was equally depressed among iPAH-groups. Imaging and invasive hemodynamic measurements suggested concealed LVDD in iPAH patients with a high H2FPEF-score. At follow-up, hemodynamic and functional responses were similar in iPAH-patients with a high or low H2FPEF-score. While a high H2FPEF-score in iPAH is associated with a worse prognosis and signs of LVDD, hemodynamic and functional responses to PAH treatment are not predicted by the H2FPEF-score.

Exercise Systolic Reserve and Exercise Pulmonary Hypertension Improve Diagnosis of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

AimsDiastolic stress testing (DST) is recommended to confirm heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in patients with exertional dyspnea, but current algorithms do not detect all patients. We aimed to identify additional echocardiographic markers of elevated pulmonary arterial wedge pressure during exercise (exPAWP) in patients referred for DST.Methods and ResultsWe identified candidate parameters in 22 patients referred for exercise right heart catheterization with simultaneous echocardiography. Elevated exPAWP (≥25 mmHg) was present in 14 patients, and was best identified by peak septal systolic annular velocity <9.5 cm/s [exS', area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.92–1.0] and mean pulmonary artery pressure/cardiac output slope ≥3.2 mmHg/L [mPAP/CO, AUC 0.88 (0.72–1.0)]. We propose a decision tree to identify patients with elevated exPAWP. Applying this decision tree to 326 patients in an independent non-invasive DST cohort showed that patients labeled as “high probability of HFpEF” (n = 85) had reduced peak oxygen uptake [13.0 (10.7–15.1) mL/kg/min, p < 0.001 vs. intermediate/low probability], high H2FPEF score [53 (40–72) %, p < 0.001 vs. intermediate/low probability], and typical clinical characteristics. The diagnostic yield of DST increased from 11% using exercise E/e', to 62% using the decision tree.ConclusionIn DST for suspected HFpEF, exS' was the most accurate echocardiographic parameter to identify elevated PAWP. We propose a decision tree including exS' and mPAP/CO for interpretation of DST. Application of this decision tree revealed typical HFpEF characteristics in patients labeled as high probability of HFpEF, and substantially reduced the number of inconclusive results.

Ischemic Stroke in Non-Gender-Related CHA2DS2-VA Score 0~1 Is Associated With H2FPEF Score Among the Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BackgroundIschemic strokes (ISs) can appear even in non-gender-related CHA2DS2-VA scores 0~1 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We explored the determinants associated with IS development among the patients with non-gender-related CHA2DS2-VA score 0~1 AF.Methods and ResultsIn this single-center retrospective registry data for AF catheter ablation (AFCA), we included 1,353 patients with AF (24.7% female, median age 56 years, and paroxysmal AF 72.6%) who had non-gender-related CHA2DS2-VA score 0~1, normal left ventricular (LV) systolic function, and available H2FPEF score. Among those patients, 113 experienced IS despite a non-gender-related CHA2DS2-VA score of 0~1. All included patients underwent AFCA, and we evaluated the associated factors with IS in non-gender-related CHA2DS2-VA score 0~1 AF. Patients with ISs in this study had a lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (p < 0.001) and LV ejection fraction (LVEF; p = 0.017), larger LA diameter (p < 0.001), reduced LA appendage peak velocity (p < 0.001), and a higher baseline H2FPEF score (p = 0.018) relative to those without ISs. Age [odds ratio (OR) 1.11 (1.07–1.17), p < 0.001, Model 1] and H2FPEF score as continuous [OR 1.31 (1.03–1.67), p = 0.028, Model 2] variable were independently associated with ISs by multivariate analysis. Moreover, the eGFR was independently associated with IS at low CHA2DS2-VA scores in both Models 1 and 2. AF recurrence was significantly higher in patients with IS (log-rank p < 0.001) but not in those with high H2FPEF scores (log-rank p = 0.079), respectively.ConclusionsAmong the patients with normal LVEF and non-gender-related CHA2DS2-VA score 0~1 AF, the high H2FPEF score, and increasing age were independently associated with IS development (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02138695).

Prognostic value of H2FPEF score in COVID-19

Study objectiveThis study sought to assess the predictive value of H2FPEF score in patients with COVID-19. DesignRetrospective study. SettingRush University Medical Center. ParticipantsA total of 1682 patients had an echocardiogram in the year preceding their COVID-19 admission with a preserved ejection fraction (≥50%). A total of 156 patients met inclusion criteria. InterventionsPatients were divided into H2FPEF into low (0–2), intermediate (3–5), and high (6–9) score H2FPEF groups and outcomes were compared. Main outcome measuresAdjusted multivariable logistic regression models evaluated the association between H2FPEF score group and a composite outcome for severe COVID-19 infection consisting of (1) 60-day mortality or illness requiring (2) intensive care unit, (3) intubation, or (4) non-invasive positive pressure ventilation. ResultsHigh H2FPEF scores were at increased risk for severe COVID-19 infection when compared intermediate to H2FPEF score groups (OR 2.18 [CI: 1.01–4.80]; p = 0.049) and low H2FPEF score groups (OR 2.99 [CI: 1.22–7.61]; p < 0.05). There was no difference in outcome between intermediate H2FPEF scores (OR 1.34 [CI: 0.59–3.16]; p = 0.489) and low H2FPEF score. ConclusionsPatients with a high H2FPEF score were at increased risk for severe COVID-19 infection when compared to patients with an intermediate or low H2FPEF score regardless of regardless of coronary artery disease and chronic kidney disease.

632 Diagnostic and prognostic performance of HFA-PEFF and H2FpEF scores in patients with cardiac amyloidosis

Abstract Aims HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores were developed to aid the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and have been associated with outcomes. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic and prognostic significance of these scores in patients with a specific phenotype of HFpEF, cardiac amyloidosis (CA). Methods and results In a retrospective, double-centre, observational study we included 171 patients with either transthyretin (ATTR) (n = 89, 52%) or light-chain (AL) (n = 82, 48%) cardiac amyloidosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Patients were divided into three groups according to HFA-PEFF score (low, 0–1; intermediate 2–4; high 5–6) and H2FPEF score (low, 0–1; intermediate 2–5; high 6–9). None of the patients had a HFA-PEFF score of 0 or 1 (n = 0, 0%); 57 (33.3%) patients had HFA-PEFF score 2–4 and the majority (n = 114, 66.7%) had a high HFA-PEFF score. Twenty-eight (16.4%), 104 (60.8%), 39 (22.8%) patients had low, intermediate, and high H2FPEF score, respectively. During a median follow-up of 14.5 (6.5–30.2) months after diagnosis, 61 (35.7%) patients died. Patients with a high HFA-PEFF score had higher mortality, compared to those with an intermediate score (47.4% vs. 12.3%, P &amp;lt; 0.001). After adjustment for several clinical variables, including age, sex, comorbidities, natriuretic peptides, troponin levels and echocardiographic parameters, a high HFA-PEFF score was independently associated with mortality (HR: 3.75; 95% CI: 1.61–8.70; P = 0.005). H2FPEF score was not significantly associated with outcomes. Conclusions Our results suggest that a low HFA-PEFF score successfully rules out CA diagnosis, whereas some CA patients present a low H2FPEF score, potentially misleading the diagnosis. HFA-PEFF but not H2FPEF score was associated with outcome in patients with CA.

Abstract 10402: H 2 FPEF Score as a Prognostic Tool to Predict Mortality and Hospitalization in Adults with Normal Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Dyspnea: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: The score “H2FPEF’’ has been described as a tool to predict heart Failure with Preserved Ejection fraction (HFpEF). The scoring criteria and interpretation are as follows: 0 or 1, exclude HFpEF; 2-5, further examination is needed to confirm the diagnosis; and 6-9, high probability of HFpEF diagnosis. However, predicting the prognosis of patients by using this scoring system is an ongoing topic of interest. Hypothesis: H2FPEF score can be used to predict mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in adults with normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and dyspnea. Methods: We systematically searched Pubmed, Embase, and Scopus for abstracts and full-text articles from inception to May 2021. Studies were included if they evaluated the relationship between a high H2FPEF score (defined as ≥6) and mortality or hospitalization due to HF in adults with normal LVEF and/or dyspnea. Pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the random-effects model by DerSimonian and Laird. Results: A total of 4 studies were included that had a total of 8071 patients (mean age: 72 years, 49% were females) with an overall mortality of 35%. The relationship between a high H2FPEF score between survivors and non-survivors demonstrated an association with mortality (OR:1.73 CI:1.41-2.11 p&lt;0.01. Figure 1.). The association to mortality persisted in the subgroup analysis of patients who already had the diagnosis of HFpEF and in patients evaluated with unexplained dyspnea, (OR:1.55 CI:1.22-1.96 p&lt;0.01. Figure 2.), (OR:2.02 CI:1.49-2.74 p&lt;0.01 Figure 3.) respectively. In addition, a high H2FPEP was associated with HF related hospitalizations (OR:1.70 CI:1.26-2.29 p&lt;0.01. Figure 4.). Conclusions: A high H2FPEF score is associated with mortality and HF hospitalization irrespective of the presence of a known HFpEF diagnosis. This could help identify a population that may warrant more aggressive monitoring and management strategies.

Abstract 10057: Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation is More Prevalent in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Compared to the General Population

Introduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and is associated with higher filling pressures, reduced exercise capacity, and reduced survival. The prevalence of subclinical AF in HFpEF remains unknown. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that subclinical AF was more prevalent in individuals with HFpEF when compared to individuals without clinical heart failure history. Methods: We evaluated subclinical AF in 101 HFpEF patients with no prior diagnosis of clinical AF using 14 day ambulatory ECG patch monitoring (Ziopatch XT, iRhythm Technologies). We compared the prevalence of subclinical AF in HFpEF with controls drawn from 3303 participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) exam 6 follow-up, excluding those with known heart failure or high H2FpEF score who underwent the same ECG patch monitoring. Case-control comparisons of participants between the ages of 55 to 93 years were performed using multivariable logistic regression to adjust for demographic and clinical comorbidities, as well as patch monitoring duration. Results: 80 HFpEF patients and 1356 MESA participants were included. The HFpEF patients were younger (69 [63, 76] v. 72 [66, 80], p=0.02), more obese (BMI of 36 [30, 45] v. 27 [24, 30], p&lt;0.001) and more likely to have diabetes (34 v. 21%, p=0.01). There was a higher proportion of African Americans in the HFpEF group (57.5 v. 22.8%, p&lt;0.001). The prevalence of subclinical AF was 9.8% in HFpEF group and 6.2% in MESA participants. After multivariable adjustment for age, sex, race, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, smoking pack-years and total analyzable time on ECG monitor there was a significantly higher odds of subclinical AF in HFpEF compared to MESA (OR 4.26 [1.2, 16.2], p=0.03). Conclusions: HFpEF patients have a higher prevalence of subclinical AF than the general population. Screening for atrial arrhythmias may be appropriate in HFpEF patients for timely initiation of thromboembolic prophylaxis, and may identify individuals at greater risk for clinical decompensation in light of the well documented risks associated with AF in HFpEF.

Validation of the HFA-PEFF and the H2FPEF scores for the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in Japanese patients:a report from the Japanese multicentre registry

Abstract Background The standard diagnosis of heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is based on the following: 1) symptoms of HF, 2) preserved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF, &amp;gt;50%), and 3) presence of LV diastolic dysfunction confirmed by echocardiography or cardiac catheterisation. However, there are limits to the diagnostic accuracy of individual parameters, and what cut-off values should be applied and how they should be combined remain unclear. Diagnostic algorithms for HFpEF such as the HFA-PEFF algorithm and the H2FPEF score have been proposed; however, previous validation studies were conducted in stable chronic HF and did not include an invasive haemodynamic assessment. Thus, the diagnostic accuracy for HFpEF lacked robustness. Moreover, information on their applicability in the Asian population is limited. Purpose The aim of this study was to investigate these scores' diagnostic validity for HFpEF in Japanese patients recently hospitalised due to acute decompensated HF. Methods We examined patients with HFpEF recently hospitalised with acute decompensated HF whose HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores could be calculated at discharge from a nationwide HFpEF-specific multicentre registry (HFpEF group) and control patients who underwent echocardiography to investigate the cause of dyspnoea in our hospital (Non-HFpEF group). We calculated the HFA-PEFF and the H2FPEF scores among the studied population. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) were computed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of these scores. Results The studied population included 372 consecutive patients (194 HFpEF group and 178 Non-HFpEF group; HFpEF prevalence, 52%). The HFA-PEFF score classified 155 (42%) of all patients into the high likelihood category (5–6 points) and only 19 (5%) into the low likelihood category (0–1 point). A high HFA-PEFF score could diagnose HFpEF with a high specificity of 84% and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 82%, and a low HFA-PEFF score could rule out HFpEF with a high sensitivity of 99% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 89%. The H2FPEF score classified 86 (23%) of all patients into the high likelihood category (6–9 points) and 84 (23%) into the low likelihood category (0–1 point). HFpEF could be diagnosed with a high H2FPEF score (specificity, 97%; PPV, 94%) or ruled out with a low H2FPEF score (sensitivity, 97%; NPV, 93%). The diagnostic accuracy for the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78–0.86) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.86–0.93), respectively, by the AUC of the ROC curve (P=0.004) (Figure 1A). In the HFA-PEFF sub-scores, the functional score showed little diagnostic value, while the morphological and biomarker scores showed moderate diagnostic value (Figure 1B). Conclusions The H2FPEF score may be more useful than the HFA-PEFF score in diagnosing HFpEF in Japanese patients. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS KAKENHI) Figure 1

Performance of the H2FPEF and the HFA-PEFF scores for the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in Japanese patients: A report from the Japanese multicenter registry

BackgroundDiagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is challenging. Although the H2FPEF score and HFA-PEFF algorithm have been proposed for diagnosing HFpEF, previous validation studies were conducted in stable chronic heart failure (HF). Moreover, information on their applicability in the Asian population is limited. We sought to investigate these scores' diagnostic performance for HFpEF in Japanese patients recently hospitalized due to acute decompensated HF. MethodsWe examined patients with HFpEF recently hospitalized with acute decompensated HF from a nationwide HFpEF-specific multicenter registry (HFpEF group) and control patients who underwent echocardiography to investigate the cause of dyspnea in our hospital (Non-HFpEF group). ResultsThe studied population included 372 patients (194 HFpEF group and 178 Non-HFpEF group; HFpEF prevalence, 52%). A high H2FPEF score (6–9 points) could diagnose HFpEF with a high specificity of 97% and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 94%, and a low H2FPEF score (0–1 point) could rule out HFpEF with a high sensitivity of 97% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 93%. HFpEF could be diagnosed with a high HFA-PEFF score (5–6 points) (specificity, 84%; PPV, 82%) or ruled out with a low HFA-PEFF score (0–1 point) (sensitivity, 99%; NPV, 89%). The H2FPEF score was significantly superior to the HFA-PEFF score in diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve: 0.89 vs. 0.82, respectively, p = 0.004). ConclusionsThe H2FPEF and the HFA-PEFF scores had acceptable diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing HFpEF in Japanese patients.

One-Year Change in the H2FPEF Score After Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With a Normal Left Ventricular Systolic Function.

Background: It is unclear whether atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation (AFCA) improves the left ventricular (LV) diastolic function. We evaluated the 1-year change in the H2FPEF score, which reflects the degree of LV diastolic function, after AFCA among patients with a normal LV systolic function.Methods and Results: We included 1,471 patients (30.7% female, median age 60 years, paroxysmal-type AF 68.6%) who had available H2FPEF scores at baseline and at 1-year after AFCA to evaluate the 1-year change in the H2FPEF score (ΔH2FPEF score[1−yr]) after AFCA. Baseline high H2FPEF scores (≥6) were independently associated with the female sex, left atrium (LA) diameter, LV mass index, pericardial fat volume, and a low estimated glomerular filtration rate. One year after AFCA, decreased ΔH2FPEF scores[1−yr] were associated with baseline H2FPEF scores of ≥6 [OR, 4.19 (95% CI, 2.88–6.11), p < 0.001], no diabetes [OR, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.37–0.98), p = 0.04], and lower pericardial fat volume [OR, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99–1.00), p = 0.003]. Increased ΔH2FPEF scores[1−yr] were associated with a baseline H2FPEF score of <6 [OR, 3.54 (95% CI, 2.08–6.04), p < 0.001] and sustained AF after a recurrence within 1 year [SustainAF[1−yr]; OR, 1.89 (95% CI, 1.01–3.54), p = 0.048]. Throughout a 56-month median follow-up, an increased ΔH2FPEF score[1−yr] resulted in a poorer rhythm outcome of AFCA (at 1 year, log-rank p = 0.003; long-term, log-rank p = 0.010).Conclusions: AFCA appears to improve LV diastolic dysfunction. However, SustainAF[1−yr] may contribute to worsening LV diastolic dysfunction, and it was shown by increased ΔH2FPEF scores[1−yr], which was independently associated with higher risk of AF recurrence rate after AFCA.Clinical Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02138695.

Prognostic value of the H2 FPEF score in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

AimsThe aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of the H2FPEF score in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF).Methods and resultsIn this multicentre study, a total of 832 patients from two German high‐volume centres, who received TAVI for severe AS and preserved EF (≥50%), were identified for calculation of the H2FPEF score. Patients were dichotomized according to low (0–5 points; n = 570) and high (6–9 points; n = 262) H2FPEF scores. Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses were applied to assess the prognostic impact of the H2FPEF score. We observed a decrease in stroke volume index (−2.04 mL/m2/point) and mean transvalvular gradients (−1.14 mmHg/point) with increasing H2FPEF score translating into a higher prevalence of paradoxical low‐flow, low‐gradient AS among patients with high H2FPEF score. One year after TAVI, the rates of all‐cause (low vs. high H2FPEF score: 8.0% vs. 19.4%, P < 0.0001) and cardiovascular (CV) mortality (1.9% vs. 9.0%, P < 0.0001) as well as the rate of CV mortality or rehospitalization for congestive heart failure (6.4% vs. 23.2%, P < 0.0001) were higher in patients with high H2FPEF score compared with those with low H2FPEF score. After multivariable analysis, a high H2FPEF score remained independently predictive of all‐cause mortality [hazard ratio 1.59 (1.28–2.35), P = 0.018] and CV mortality or rehospitalization for congestive heart failure [hazard ratio 2.92 (1.65–5.15), P < 0.001]. Among the H2FPEF score variables, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary hypertension, and elevated left ventricular filling pressure were the strongest outcome predictors.ConclusionsThe H2FPEF score serves as an independent predictor of adverse CV and heart failure outcome among TAVI patients with preserved EF. A high H2FPEF score is associated with the presence of paradoxical low‐flow, low‐gradient AS, the HFpEF in patients with AS. By identifying patients in advanced stages of HFpEF, the H2FPEF score might be useful as a risk prediction tool in patients with preserved EF scheduled for TAVI.

Abstract 16357: Application of the H2FPEF-score in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Insights From the Amsterdam UMC PAH-cohort

Introduction: Newly diagnosed idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) patients increasingly have features of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). These so-called “atypical” PAH patients can be identified using the H2FPEF-score (Reddy, Circulation 2018). This patient group is often excluded from clinical trials, and it is therefore unclear whether they respond similarly to PAH-specific medication. Aim: To assess baseline characteristics and treatment response of patients diagnosed with PAH stratified by the H2FPEF-score. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 253 treatment naïve PAH-patients who underwent diagnostic right heart catheterization at baseline. Groups were compared with ANOVA, post-hoc pairwise t-tests with Bonferroni correction and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis. Results: This cohort included 58 (23%) patients with a low (≤1), 159 (63%) patients with an intermediate (2-5) and 36 (14%) patients with a high (≥6) H2FPEF-score. Patients with a high H2FPEF-score were older and more often male, used more diuretics, had more comorbidities and had more often PAH with severely impaired diffusion capacity compared to patients with a low H2FPEF-score. In addition, patients with a high H2FPEF-score had a significantly lower cardiac index, mixed venous blood gas, oxygen saturation and 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) compared to patients with a low H2FPEF-score. A high H2FPEF-score was associated with worse survival despite correcting for confounders (HR 2.99, 95% CI 1.53-5.84, Fig.1 A). Despite potential survival bias, at 1-year follow-up 6MWD (Fig.1 B) significantly improved in patients with a low and intermediate H2FPEF-score, but did not change in patients with a high H2FPEF-score (interaction p-value&lt; 0.001). Conclusions: A high H2FPEF-score is associated with worse survival in PAH. Also, no improvement in 6MWD was observed in patients with a high H2FPEF-score only.

The adverse impact of HFpEF in patients with aortic stenosis: evaluation of the H2FPEF score for risk assessment among patients with preserved ejection fraction undergoing TAVI

Abstract Background The H2FPEF score enables identification of patients with high probability of prevalent heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). High H2FPEF scores have proven to be associated with adverse outcome in patients with known HFpEF. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic impact of the H2FPEF score in patients undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF). Methods In this multi-centre study a total of 832 patients from two German high-volume centres, who received TAVI for severe AS and preserved EF (≥50%), were identified for calculation of the H2FPEF score. Score variables included BMI &amp;gt;30 kg/m2, arterial hypertension, atrial fibrillation, systolic pulmonary artery pressure &amp;gt;31 mmHg, age &amp;gt;60 years, and invasively assessed elevated LV filling pressure. Patients were dichotomized according to low (1–5 points; n=570) and high H2FPEF scores (6–9 points; n=262). Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were applied to assess the prognostic impact of the H2FPEF score. Median follow-up time was 1.08 years. Results Patients presenting with high H2FPEF scores had higher prevalence of moderate to severe mitral and tricuspid regurgitation compared to those with low H2FPEF scores. Stroke volume index (SVI) (Figure 1A) and mean transvalvular gradient (Pmean) consistently decreased with increasing H2FPEF score. All-cause mortality 30 days after TAVI was significantly higher in patients with high H2FPEF scores (p&amp;lt;0.0001). This finding was consistent both after 1 year (p&amp;lt;0.0001) and 3 years (p&amp;lt;0.0001) (Figure 1B). Multivariate analysis revealed a high H2FPEF score to be independently predictive for all-cause mortality (HR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.11–2.38, p=0.013). Among the single H2FPEF score parameters atrial fibrillation was the strongest independent predictor of adverse outcome. Conclusion An elevated H2FPEF score of ≥6 is independently predictive for mortality in patients with preserved EF undergoing TAVI for severe AS, which might be due to a higher proportion of paradoxical low flow low gradient AS in these patients. Our findings provide evidence that the H2FPEF score may help identify AS patients with preserved ejection fraction that are at higher risk for adverse outcome after TAVI. Spline/SVI (A) and 3y-mortality KM (B) Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Diagnostic And Prognostic Implications of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Scoring Systems

Background The phenotypically heterogeneous syndrome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is challenging to diagnose. The HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores were developed to guide HFpEF diagnosis but have not been directly compared. We evaluated the generalizability and prognostic implications of the two scores in Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) and PDE-5 Inhibition to Improve Clinical Status and Exercise Capacity in HFpEF (RELAX) trial participants and matched controls from Atherosclerosis Risk in Community (ARIC) study. Methods Participants from TOPCAT, RELAX, and ARIC studies were categorized as having low, intermediate, and high likelihood of HFpEF based on the respective scores. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using age, sex, and race matched controls, free of cardiovascular disease from ARIC study. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression was used to assess the prognostic value of the scores. Results The median HFA-PEFF score in TOPCAT, RELAX and ARIC was 5.0 (IQR:5.0-6.0), 4.0 (IQR:2.0-4.0) and 3 (IQR:2.0-4.0), respectively. The median H2FPEF score in the three populations was 5.0 (IQR:4.0-7.0), 6.0 (IQR:4.0-7.0), and 2.5 (IQR:2.0-4.0), respectively. High HFA-PEFF scores were seen in 75.8%, 20.4%, and 16.5% of in the three populations, respectively. High H2FPEF scores were seen in 42.3%, 55.3%, and 1.9% of the three populations, respectively. Application of HFA-PEFF score categories to patients categorized using H2FPEF score led to 84.2% of TOPCAT, and 50.5% of RELAX participants being reclassified (Figure 1A,B). Using low HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores, HFpEF can be ruled-out with high sensitivity (99.5% and 99.9%, respectively) and high negative predictive value (95.7% and 98.5%, respectively). A high HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF score can rule-in HFpEF with good specificity (83.5% and 98.1%, respectively) and positive predictive value (80.6% and 95.5%, respectively). Among TOPCAT participants, the hazard for adverse cardiovascular events per point increase in HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF score was 1.32 (95% CI: 1.03-1.69) and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.91-1.17), respectively (Figure 1 C,D). Conclusion The HFA-PEFF and the H2FPEF scores are reliable diagnostic tools for HFpEF. The scores also provide prognostic value for the risk stratification of HFpEF patients.