Heart failure & cardiomyopathiesCohort study

The LEDA Score

JACC AdvPublished

  • prospective single-center study

Authors' conclusion

In this selected cohort undergoing an invasive hemodynamic assessment for diagnostic uncertainty, LEDA showed stronger diagnostic performance than contemporary HFpEF diagnostic algorithms and an echocardiographic filling-pressure framework. External validation is required before application to broader outpatient populations.

Study context

Population
Selected patients with unexplained dyspnea who underwent echocardiography and an invasive hemodynamic assessment within 24 hoursselected patients with unexplained dyspnea
Participants
171 patients
Exposure
Diagnostic performance of LEDA compared with H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF, and 2025 American Society of Echocardiography diastolic criteria, for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) defined by symptoms or signs of heart failure with elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and/or invasively measured left-sided filling pressure (LSFP) ≥15 mm Hg

Main finding

As reported in the abstract

HFpEF prevalence

HFpEF present

42%

Observational data: associations, not effects.

Further findings

OutcomeLEDAH2FPEFHFA-PEFFAmerican Society of Echocardiography criteria
Discrimination for HFpEF (area under the curve)area under the curve 0.85area under the curve 0.74area under the curve 0.74area under the curve 0.61
Positive likelihood ratio for HFpEF at LEDA ≥3positive likelihood ratio 7.4positive likelihood ratio 3.0positive likelihood ratio 1.8positive likelihood ratio 1.6
LEDA performance for invasive LSFP endpoints
0.90 · area under the curve up to · specificity up to 95.5% · positive likelihood ratio up to 16.3
  • Discrimination for HFpEF (area under the curve): LEDA higher discrimination than the comparators, P ≤ 0.010

Original publication

The LEDA Score. JACC Adv. Published 18 September 2026. doi:10.1016/j.jacadv.2026.103246

Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it