CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Relationship Between Infarct Size and Outcomes Following Primary PCI: Patient-Level Analysis From 10 Randomized Trials Intravascular ultrasound guidance in drug-eluting stents implantation: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials Predicting lifetime risk for developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in Chinese population: the China-PAR project Intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary bifurcation lesions: a review Prognostic impact of non-culprit chronic total occlusions in infarct-related cardiogenic shock: results of the randomised IABP-SHOCK II trial Risk of Early Adverse Events After Clopidogrel Discontinuation in Patients Undergoing Short-Term Dual Antiplatelet Therapy: An Individual Participant Data Analysis Risk Stratification for Patients in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction Intracoronary Optical Coherence Tomography 2018: Current Status and Future Directions Predicting the 10-Year Risks of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Chinese Population: The China-PAR Project (Prediction for ASCVD Risk in China) Non-eligibility for reperfusion therapy in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Contemporary insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR)

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.