TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnosis of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in primary care
T2 - cohort study
AU - OPTIMISE HFpEF investigators and collaborators
AU - Forsyth, Faye
AU - Brimicombe, James
AU - Cheriyan, Joseph
AU - Edwards, Duncan
AU - Hobbs, F. D.Richard
AU - Jalaludeen, Navazh
AU - Mant, Jonathan
AU - Pilling, Mark
AU - Schiff, Rebekah
AU - Taylor, Clare J.
AU - Zaman, M. Justin
AU - Deaton, Christi
AU - Chakravorty, Mollika
AU - Maclachlan, Sophie
AU - Kane, Edward
AU - Odone, Jessica
AU - Thorley, Natasha
AU - Borja-Boluda, Susana
AU - Wellwood, Ian
AU - Sowden, Emma
AU - Blakeman, Thomas
AU - Chew-Graham, Carolyn
AU - Hossain, Muhammed
AU - Sharpley, John
AU - Gordon, Brain
AU - Taffe, Joanna
AU - Long, Aaron
AU - Aziz, Affan
AU - Swayze, Hannah
AU - Rutter, Heather
AU - Schramm, Chris
AU - MacDonald, Sine
AU - Papworth, Helena
AU - Smith, Julie
AU - Needs, Craig
AU - Cronk, David
AU - Newark, Chris
AU - Blake, Duncan
AU - Brown, Alistair
AU - Basuita, Amman
AU - Gayton, Emma
AU - Glover, Victoria
AU - Fox, Robin
AU - Crawshaw, Jonathan
AU - Ashdown, Helen
AU - A'Court, Christine
AU - Ayerst, Rachael
AU - Hernandez-Diaz, Basilio
AU - Knox, Kyle
AU - Jones, Adam
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.
PY - 2021/12
Y1 - 2021/12
N2 - Aims: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for half of all heart failure (HF), but low awareness and diagnostic challenges hinder identification in primary care. Our aims were to evaluate the recruitment and diagnostic strategy in the Optimise HFpEF cohort and compare with recent recommendations for diagnosing HFpEF. Methods and results: Patients were recruited from 30 primary care practices in two regions in England using an electronic screening algorithm and two secondary care sites. Baseline assessment collected clinical and patient-reported data and diagnosis by history, assessment, and trans-thoracic echocardiogram (TTE). A retrospective evaluation compared study diagnosis with H2FPEF score and HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithm. A total of 152 patients (86% primary care, mean age 78.5, 40% female) were enrolled; 93 (61%) had HFpEF confirmed. Most participants had clinical features of HFpEF, but those with confirmed HFpEF were more likely female, obese, functionally impaired, and symptomatic. Some echocardiographic findings were diagnostic for HFpEF, but no difference in natriuretic peptide levels were observed. The H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores were not significantly different by group, although confirmed HFpEF cases were more likely to have scores indicating high probability of HFpEF. Conclusions: Patients with HFpEF in primary care are difficult to identify, and greater awareness of the condition, with clear diagnostic pathways and specialist support, are needed. Use of diagnostic algorithms and scores can provide systematic approaches to diagnosis but may be challenging to apply in older multi-morbid patients. Where diagnostic uncertainty remains, pragmatic decisions are needed regarding the value of additional testing versus management of presumptive HFpEF.
AB - Aims: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for half of all heart failure (HF), but low awareness and diagnostic challenges hinder identification in primary care. Our aims were to evaluate the recruitment and diagnostic strategy in the Optimise HFpEF cohort and compare with recent recommendations for diagnosing HFpEF. Methods and results: Patients were recruited from 30 primary care practices in two regions in England using an electronic screening algorithm and two secondary care sites. Baseline assessment collected clinical and patient-reported data and diagnosis by history, assessment, and trans-thoracic echocardiogram (TTE). A retrospective evaluation compared study diagnosis with H2FPEF score and HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithm. A total of 152 patients (86% primary care, mean age 78.5, 40% female) were enrolled; 93 (61%) had HFpEF confirmed. Most participants had clinical features of HFpEF, but those with confirmed HFpEF were more likely female, obese, functionally impaired, and symptomatic. Some echocardiographic findings were diagnostic for HFpEF, but no difference in natriuretic peptide levels were observed. The H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores were not significantly different by group, although confirmed HFpEF cases were more likely to have scores indicating high probability of HFpEF. Conclusions: Patients with HFpEF in primary care are difficult to identify, and greater awareness of the condition, with clear diagnostic pathways and specialist support, are needed. Use of diagnostic algorithms and scores can provide systematic approaches to diagnosis but may be challenging to apply in older multi-morbid patients. Where diagnostic uncertainty remains, pragmatic decisions are needed regarding the value of additional testing versus management of presumptive HFpEF.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85115643846&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/ehf2.13612
DO - 10.1002/ehf2.13612
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85115643846
SN - 2055-5822
VL - 8
SP - 4562
EP - 4571
JO - ESC Heart Failure
JF - ESC Heart Failure
IS - 6
ER -