Evidence mapPaperPMID 37655737Full record

Observational studyAnatolian journal of cardiology2023

Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF Scoring Systems in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Patients: Insights from the APOLLON Registry.

Gurbet Özge Mert, Bülent Özlek, Eda Özlek, Hicaz Zencirkiran Ağuş, Mehmet Tekinalp, Serkan Kahraman, Cem Çil, Oğuzhan Çelik, Özcan Başaran, Volkan Doğan and 10 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readObservational StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Anatolian journal of cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Discordance between left atrial pressure and risk scores in assessment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing catheter ablation.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gurbet Özge MertDepartment of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Türkiye.
Bülent ÖzlekDepartment of Cardiology, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University Training and Research Hospital, Muğla, Türkiye.
Eda ÖzlekDepartment of Cardiology, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University Training and Research Hospital, Muğla, Türkiye.
Hicaz Zencirkiran AğuşDepartment of Cardiology, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye.
Mehmet TekinalpDepartment of Cardiology, Kahramanmaraş Necip Fazıl City Hospital, Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye.
Serkan KahramanDepartment of Cardiology, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye.
Cem ÇilDepartment of Cardiology, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University Training and Research Hospital, Muğla, Türkiye.
Oğuzhan ÇelikDepartment of Cardiology, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University Training and Research Hospital, Muğla, Türkiye.
Özcan BaşaranDepartment of Cardiology, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University Training and Research Hospital, Muğla, Türkiye.
Volkan DoğanDepartment of Cardiology, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University Training and Research Hospital, Muğla, Türkiye.
Bedri Caner KayaDepartment of Cardiology, Mehmet Akif İnan Training and Research Hospital, Şanlıurfa, Türkiye.
İbrahim RencüzoğullarıDepartment of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Kafkas University, Kars, Türkiye.
Altuğ ÖskenDepartment of Cardiology, Dr. Siyami Ersek Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye.
Lütfü BekarDepartment of Cardiology, Hitit University Çorum Erol Olçok Training and Research Hospital, Çorum, Türkiye.
Mustafa Ozan ÇakırDepartment of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Bülent Ecevit Universiy, Zonguldak, Türkiye.
Yunus ÇelikDepartment of Cardiology, Kırıkkale Yüksek İhtisas Hospital, Kırıkkale, Türkiye.
Kadriye Memiç SancarDepartment of Cardiology, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye.
Samet SevinçDepartment of Cardiology, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye.
Murat BitekerDepartment of Cardiology, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University Training and Research Hospital, Muğla, Türkiye.
Kadir Uğur MertDepartment of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Türkiye.
Eskişehir Osmangazi University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction is a complex and heterogeneous clinical syndrome, poses significant diagnostic challenges. The HFA-PEFF [Heart Failure Association of ESC diagnostic algorithm, P (Pretest Assessment), E  (Echocardiographic and Natriuretic Peptide score), F1 (Functional testing in Case of Uncertainty), F2 (Final Aetiology)] and H2FPEF [Heavy (BMI>30 kg/m2), Hypertensive (use of ≥2 antihypertensive medications), atrial Fibrillation (paroxysmal or persistent), Pulmonary hypertension (Doppler Echocardiographic estimated Pulmonary Artery Systolic Pressure >35 mm Hg), Elderly (age >60 years), Filling pressure (Doppler Echocardiographic E/e' >9)] scoring systems were developed to aid in diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. This study aimed to assess the concordance and clinical accuracy of these scoring systems in the 'A comPrehensive, ObservationaL registry of heart faiLure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fractiON' cohort.

methodsA comPrehensive, ObservationaL registry of heart faiLure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fractiON study was conducted as a multicenter, cross-sectional, and observational study; to evaluate a group of Heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients who were seen by cardiologists in 13 participating centers across 12 cities in Türkiye.

resultsThe study enrolled 819 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, with high probability heart failure with preserved ejection fraction rates of 40% and 26% for HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scorings, respectively. The concordance between the 2 scoring systems was found to be low (Kendall's taub correlation coefficient of 0.242, P < .001). The diagnostic performance of both scoring systems was evaluated, revealing differences in their approach and ability to accurately identify heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients.

conclusionThe low concordance between the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scoring systems underscores the ongoing challenge of accurately diagnosing and managing patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Clinicians should be aware of the strengths and limitations of each scoring system and use them in conjunction with other clinical and laboratory findings to arrive at an accurate diagnosis. Future research should focus on identifying additional diagnostic factors, developing more accurate and comprehensive diagnostic algorithms, and investigating alternative methods of diagnosis or stratification of patients based on different clinical characteristics.

Indexed as

Atrial FibrillationHeart FailureAgedAntihypertensive AgentsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMiddle AgedStroke VolumeAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID37655737
PMCPMC10510413
OpenAlexW4386347708

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.