Diagnosis of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction among Patients with Unexplained Dyspnea

Importance: Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) among dyspneic patients without overt congestion is challenging. Multiple diagnostic approaches have been proposed but are not well validated against the independent gold standard for HFpEF diagnosis of an elevated pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) during exercise. Objective: To evaluate H 2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores and a PCWP/cardiac output (CO) slope of more than 2 mm Hg/L/min to diagnose HFpEF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective case-control study included patients with unexplained dyspnea from 6 centers in the US, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Australia from March 2016 to October 2020. Diagnosis of HFpEF (cases) was definitively ascertained by the presence of elevated PCWP during exertion; control individuals were those with normal rest and exercise hemodynamics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Logistic regression was used to evaluate the accuracy of HFA-PEFF and H 2FPEF scores to discriminate patients with HFpEF from controls. Results: Among 736 patients, 563 (76%) were diagnosed with HFpEF (mean [SD] age, 69 [11] years; 334 [59%] female) and 173 (24%) represented controls (mean [SD] age, 60 [15] years; 109 [63%] female). H 2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores discriminated patients with HFpEF from controls, but the H 2FPEF score had greater area under the curve (0.845; 95% CI, 0.810-0.875) compared with the HFA-PEFF score (0.710; 95% CI, 0.659-0.756) (difference, -0.134; 95% CI, -0.177 to -0.094; P <.001). Specificity was robust for both scores, but sensitivity was poorer for HFA-PEFF, with a false-negative rate of 55% for low-probability scores compared with 25% using the H 2FPEF score. Use of the PCWP/CO slope to redefine HFpEF rather than exercise PCWP reclassified 20% (117 of 583) of patients, but patients reclassified from HFpEF to control by this metric had clinical, echocardiographic, and hemodynamic features typical of HFpEF, including elevated resting PCWP in 66% (46 of 70) of reclassified patients. Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study, despite requiring fewer data, the H 2FPEF score had superior diagnostic performance compared with the HFA-PEFF score and PCWP/CO slope in the evaluation of unexplained dyspnea and HFpEF in the outpatient setting

Webtool to enhance the accuracy of diagnostic algorithms for HFpEF:a prospective cross-over study

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 H FPEF 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]; H FPEF: 50% [38-50]). Correct scoring improved to 100% using the HFpEF calculator (HFA-PEFF: 100% [88-100], P &lt; 0.001; H FPEF: 100% [75-100], P &lt; 0.001). Time spent on clinical cases was similar between scoring methods (±4 min). When corrections for faulty algorithm scores were displayed, cardiologists changed their diagnostic decision in up to 67% of cases. At least 67% of cardiologists preferred using the online tool for future cases in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Manual calculation of HFpEF diagnostic algorithms is often inaccurate. Using an automated webtool to calculate HFpEF algorithms significantly improved correct scoring. This new approach may impact the eventual diagnostic decision in up to two-thirds of cases, supporting its routine use in clinical practice