Heart failure & cardiomyopathies
Comparing diagnostic tools for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction across community and clinical cohorts
Authors' conclusion
Using scores, a substantial proportion of HFpEF individuals fall into the intermediate likelihood category, highlighting diagnostic uncertainty. Simpler tools, such as the universal definition of HF, demonstrate comparable or even superior diagnostic and rule-out performances for HFpEF, emphasising the need for more practical and reliable approaches to HFpEF diagnosis.
Study context
- Population
- Individuals aged 60–80 years from established heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) cohorts and community-based cohorts without heart failure (HF)per-cohort counts printed, no total printed · MEDIA (HFpEF cohort) 297 · karolinska-Rennes (KaRen) (HFpEF cohort) 174 · STANISLAS (community cohort without HF) 461 · Malmö (community cohort without HF) 1,030
- Index test or model
- HFpEF Scores versus inclusion criteria used in SGLT2i trials, age-adjusted NT-proBNP thresholds and the universal definition of heart failure (HF)
- Target condition
- heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)
Methodological detailssex-weighted and age-weighted propensity score adjustment, two established HFpEF cohorts, two community-based cohorts without HF
- Sex-weighted and age-weighted propensity score adjustment
- Two established HFpEF cohorts
- Two community-based cohorts without HF
Performance
As reported in the abstract
HFA-PEFF and H 2 FPEF Scores: intermediate-likelihood category, community-based cohorts (up to, in Malmö)
81%
HFA-PEFF and H 2 FPEF Scores: intermediate-likelihood category, HFpEF cohorts (up to, in MEDIA)
75%
Original publication
Comparing diagnostic tools for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction across community and clinical cohorts. Heart. Published 17 November 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →