scholarly journals How to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the HFA–PEFF diagnostic algorithm: a consensus recommendation from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 391-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Burkert Pieske ◽  
Carsten Tschöpe ◽  
Rudolf A. Boer ◽  
Alan G. Fraser ◽  
Stefan D. Anker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
European Society ◽  
Diagnostic Algorithm ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Consensus Recommendation ◽  
European Society Of Cardiology

scholarly journals Approach to the Treatment of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Mid- Range Ejection Fraction

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ewa A Jankowska ◽  
Andrew JS Coats ◽  
Stefan D Anker
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
European Society ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
The Future ◽  
European Society Of Cardiology ◽  
Agreed Definition

In this article we discuss the treatment of heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and of HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) as has received considerable interest since the publciation of the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) heart failure guidelines. Since clinical trials on HFpEF have included also patients with HFmrEF, due to the lack of an agreed definition, the ESC recommendations here described apply to both phenotypes. As a consequence of the recent characterisation of this HF syndrome, it is expected that upcoming research will provide data specifically regarding HFmrEF and tailored recommendations will be developed in the future.

scholarly journals Application of the current HFA-ESC consensus guidelines on diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction to a population referred for echocardiography

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
K Liang ◽  
R Hearse-Morgan ◽  
S Fairbairn ◽  
Y Ismail ◽  
AK Nightingale
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Diastolic Function ◽  
Global Longitudinal Strain ◽  
Diagnostic Algorithm ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Lv Function ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Consensus Guidelines

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. BACKGROUND The recent Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) consensus guidelines on diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have developed a simple diagnostic algorithm for clinical use. PURPOSE To assess whether echocardiogram (echo) parameters needed to assess diastolic function are routinely collected in patients referred for assessment of heart failure symptoms. METHODS Retrospective analysis of echo referrals in January 2020 were assessed for parameters of diastolic function as per step 2 of the HF-PEFF diagnostic algorithm.  Echo images and clinical reports were reviewed. Electronic records were utilised to obtain clinical history, blood results (NT-proBNP) and demographic data. RESULTS 1330 patients underwent an echo in our department during January 2020. 83 patients were referred with symptoms of heart failure without prior history of cardiac disease; 20 patients found to have impaired left ventricular (LV) function were excluded from analysis. Of the 63 patients with possible HFpEF, HF-PEFF score was low in 18, intermediate in 33 and high in 12. Median age was 68 years (range 32 to 97 years); 25% had a BMI >30. There was a high prevalence of hypertension (52%), diabetes (19%) and atrial fibrillation (40%) (cf. Table 1). Body surface area (BSA) was documented in 65% of echo reports. Most echo parameters were recorded with the exception of global longitudinal strain (GLS) and indexed LV mass (cf. image 1). NT-proBNP was recorded in only 20 patients (31.7%). 12 patients with an intermediate HF-PEFF score could have been re-categorised to a high score depending on GLS and NT-proBNP (which were not recorded). CONCLUSION More than three quarters of echoes acquired in our department obtained the relevant parameters to assess diastolic function. The addition of BSA, and inclusion of NT-proBNP, and GLS would have been additive to a third of ‘intermediate’ patients to determine definite HFpEF. Our study demonstrates that the current HFA-ESC diagnostic algorithm and HF-PEFF scoring system are easy to use, highly relevant and applicable to current clinical practice. Age >70 years 29 (46.0%) Obesity (BMI >30) 16 (25.4%) Diabetes 12 (19%) Hypertension 33 (52.4%) Atrial Fibrillation 25 (39.7%) ECG abnormalities 18 (28.5%) Table 1. Prevalence of Clinical Risk Factors Abstract Figure. Image 1. HFPEFF score & echo parameters

scholarly journals Characterisation of the patients with suspected heart failure: experience from the SHEAF registry

Open Heart ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e001448
Author(s):  
Pankaj Garg ◽  
Ahmed Dakshi ◽  
Hosamadin Assadi ◽  
Andrew J Swift ◽  
Umna Naveed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
Diagnostic Algorithm ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Failure Experience

ObjectivesTo characterise and risk-stratify patients presenting to a heart failure (HF) clinic according to the National Institute for health and Care Excellence (NICE) algorithm.MethodsThis is an observational study of prospectively collected data in the Sheffield HEArt Failure registry of consecutive patients with suspected HF between April 2012 and January 2020. Outcome was defined as all-cause mortality.Results6144 patients were enrolled: 71% had HF and 29% had no HF. Patients with N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) >2000 pg/mL were more likely to have HF than those with NT-proBNP of 400–2000 pg/mL (92% vs 64%, respectively). Frequency of HF phenotypes include: HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (33%), HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (29%), HF due to valvular heart disease (4%), HF due to pulmonary hypertension (5%) and HF due to right ventricular systolic dysfunction (1%). There were 1485 (24%) deaths over a maximum follow-up of 6 years. The death rate was higher in HF versus no HF (11.49 vs 7.29 per 100 patient-years follow-up, p<0.0001). Patients with HF and an NT-proBNP >2000 pg/mL had lower survival than those with NT-proBNP 400–2000 pg/mL (3.8 years vs 5 years, p<0.0001). Propensity matched survival curves were comparable between HFpEF and HFrEF (p=0.88).ConclusionOur findings support the use by NICE’s HF diagnostic algorithm of tiered triage of patients with suspected HF based on their NT-proBNP levels. The two pathways yielded distinctive groups of patients with varied diagnoses and prognosis. HFpEF is the most frequent diagnosis, with its challenges of poor prognosis and paucity of therapeutic options.

scholarly journals Heart Failure With Mid-range Ejection Fraction: A Distinctive Subtype or a Transitional Stage?

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qing Zhou ◽  
Peixin Li ◽  
Hengli Zhao ◽  
Xingbo Xu ◽  
Shaoping Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Transitional Stage ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
European Society Of Cardiology ◽  
Different Characteristics

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) was first proposed by Lam and Solomon in 2014, and was listed as a new subtype of heart failure (HF) in 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. Since then, HFmrEF has attracted an increasing amount of attention, and the number of related studies on this topic has grown rapidly. The diagnostic criteria on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are straightforward; however, LVEF is not a static parameter, and it changes dynamically during the course of HF. Thus, HFmrEF may not be an independent disease with a uniform pathophysiological process, but rather a collection of patients with different characteristics. HFmrEF is often associated with various cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular diseases. Thus, the pathophysiological mechanisms of HFmrEF are particularly complex, and its clinical phenotypes are diverse. The complexity and heterogeneity of HFmrEF may be one reason for inconsistent results between clinical studies. In fact, whether HFmrEF is a distinctive subtype or a transitional stage between HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is controversial. In this review, we discuss the clinical characteristics, treatment and prognosis of patients with HFmrEF, as well as the differences among HFmrEF, HFrEF, and HFpEF.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document