CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Left main coronary angioplasty: early and late results of 127 acute and elective procedures Real-world clinical utility and impact on clinical decision-making of coronary computed tomography angiography-derived fractional flow reserve: lessons from the ADVANCE Registry Unprotected Left Main Disease: Indications and Optimal Strategies for Percutaneous Intervention Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation Influence of Heart Rate on FFR Measurements: An Experimental and Clinical Validation Study Diagnosis of ischemia-causing coronary stenoses by noninvasive fractional flow reserve computed from coronary computed tomographic angiograms. Results from the prospective multicenter DISCOVER-FLOW Changes in Coronary Plaque Composition in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With High-Intensity Statin Therapy (IBIS-4): A Serial Optical Coherence Tomography Study EHRA/EAPCI expert consensus statement on catheter-based left atrial appendage occlusion – an update OCT compared with IVUS in a coronary lesion assessment: the OPUS-CLASS study A prediction model of simple echocardiographic variables to screen for potentially correctable shunts in adult patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with atrial septal defects: a cross-sectional study

Consensus2019 Oct 21;40(40):3297-3317.

JOURNAL:Eur Heart J. Article Link

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)

Pieske B Tschöpe C, de Boer RA et al. Keywords: HFpEF; Heart failure; biomarkers; diagnosis; echocardiography; exercise echocardiography; natriuretic peptides

ABSTRACT


Making a firm diagnosis of chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a challenge. We recommend a new stepwise diagnostic process, the ‘HFA–PEFF diagnostic algorithm’. Step 1 (P=Pre-test assessment) is typically performed in the ambulatory setting and includes assessment for HF symptoms and signs, typical clinical demographics (obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, elderly, atrial fibrillation), and diagnostic laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography. In the absence of overt non-cardiac causes of breathlessness, HFpEF can be suspected if there is a normal left ventricular ejection fraction, no significant heart valve disease or cardiac ischaemia, and at least one typical risk factor. Elevated natriuretic peptides support, but normal levels do not exclude a diagnosis of HFpEF. The second step (E: Echocardiography and Natriuretic Peptide Score) requires comprehensive echocardiography and is typically performed by a cardiologist. Measures include mitral annular early diastolic velocity (e′), left ventricular (LV) filling pressure estimated using E/e′, left atrial volume index, LV mass index, LV relative wall thickness, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, LV global longitudinal systolic strain, and serum natriuretic peptide levels. Major (2 points) and Minor (1 point) criteria were defined from these measures. A score ≥5 points implies definite HFpEF; ≤1 point makes HFpEF unlikely. An intermediate score (2–4 points) implies diagnostic uncertainty, in which case Step 3 (F1: Functional testing) is recommended with echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic exercise stress tests. Step 4 (F2: Final aetiology) is recommended to establish a possible specific cause of HFpEF or alternative explanations. Further research is needed for a better classification of HFpEF.