CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Invasive Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Comparison of Accuracy of One-Use Methods for Calculating Fractional Flow Reserve by Intravascular Optical Coherence Tomography to That Determined by the Pressure-Wire Method No causal effects of plasma homocysteine levels on the risk of coronary heart disease or acute myocardial infarction: A Mendelian randomization study Impact of percutaneous coronary intervention extent, complexity and platelet reactivity on outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation Invasive Versus Medical Management in Patients With Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery With a Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Outcome of Applying the ESC 0/1-hour Algorithm in Patients With Suspected Myocardial Infarction Pulmonary Artery Pressure-Guided Management of Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of DAPT disruption due to non-compliance vs. bleeding after PCI: insights from the PARIS Registry Hs-cTroponins for the prediction of recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with established CHD - A comparative analysis from the KAROLA study Shock Team Approach in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Short-Term Mechanical Circulatory Support: A Proof of Concept

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.