Evaluation Of The H2FPEF And HFA-PEFF Diagnostic Scores In Obese Hemodynamically Confirmed HFpEF

Soumya Vungarala,Vivek Jani,Joban Vaishnav,Virginia Hahn,David Kass,Kavita Sharma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2023.10.090

IF: 6.592

2024-01-01

Journal of Cardiac Failure

Abstract:Background Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) was once predominantly a disease of older patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. However, the prevalent phenotype has markedly changed to one of obesity and metabolic syndrome. Scoring algorithms derived from prior common HFpEF phenotypes, including the H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores, have yet to be evaluated in a predominantly obese HFpEF cohort. Hypothesis We sought to determine the performance of HFpEF diagnostic tools in the Johns Hopkins University (JHU) HFpEF cohort, a predominantly obese, urban HFpEF cohort. Methods We identified 160 HFpEF individuals from June 2013 to November 2022 from the JHU HFpEF registry. HFpEF was defined as signs and symptoms of clinical heart failure, left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction ≥ 50% by echo, and at least two of the following: 1) structural heart disease (increased LV wall thickness or left atrial [LA] diameter); 2) NT-proBNP ≥ 100pg/mL; or 3) hemodynamic evidence of elevated filling pressures (pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, PCWP≥ 15 mmHg at rest or ≥25 mmHg with exercise). The H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores were calculated as previously described. Group comparisons were made with Mann-Whitney test or Fisher's exact test, where appropriate. Results Of the 160 HFpEF patients evaluated, the majority had a low-to-intermediate risk H2FPEF score (score < 6; n=95, 59%) or a low-to-intermediate risk HFA-PEFF score (score < 5; n=93, 58%). Upon comparison of patient characteristics, individuals in the high-risk scoring group for both the algorithm had higher NT-proBNP, and increased relative wall thickness (p<0.05 for all). For the H2FPEF algorithm, high risk scoring individuals were older (71±10 years), predominantly female (57%), with increased LA diameter on echocardiography. For HFA-PEFF, high-risk scoring individuals had increased LV wall thickness, LV mass, and LV mass indices (p<0.05 for all). We evaluated both scores in a subgroup with hemodynamically confirmed HFpEF (n=111). The majority of patients had a low-to-intermediate risk scores by both algorithms (61% for H2FPEF and 59% HFA-PEFF). High-risk scoring patients in both the algorithms had decreased pulmonary artery (PA) compliance, increased PA systolic pressures and PA elastance (p<0.05 for all). High-risk scoring patients by the H2FPEF algorithm showed increased right atrial pressure, PA diastolic pressure, mean PA pressure, PCWP and decreased cardiac index (p<0.05 for all). Conclusion Both the H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scoring algorithms are validated tools in HFpEF risk assessment, however our findings show their performance is less optimal in diagnosing HFpEF in obese individuals. Thus, modifications to the present algorithms, or new scoring algorithms may be warranted.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems