High Throughput Plasma Proteomics and Risk of Heart Failure and Frailty in Late Life.

Importance: Heart failure (HF) and frailty frequently coexist and may share a common pathobiology, although the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Understanding these mechanisms may provide guidance for preventing and treating both conditions. Objective: To identify shared pathways between incident HF and frailty in late life using large-scale proteomics. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, 4877 aptamers (Somascan v4) were measured among participants in the community-based longitudinal Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities (ARIC) cohort study at visit 3 (V3; 1993-1995; n = 10 638) and at visit 5 (V5; 2011-2013; n = 3908). Analyses were externally replicated among 3189 participants in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). Data analysis was conducted from February 2022 to June 2023. Exposures: Protein aptamers, measured at study V3 and V5. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes assessed included incident HF hospitalization after V3 and after V5, prevalent frailty at V5, and incident frailty between V5 and visit 6 (V6; 2016-2017; n = 4131). Frailty was assessed using the Fried criteria. Analyses were adjusted for age, gender, race, field center, hypertension, diabetes, smoking status, body mass index, estimated glomerular filtration rate, prevalent coronary heart disease, prevalent atrial fibrillation, and history of myocardial infarction. Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis was performed to assess potential causal effects of candidate proteins on HF and frailty. Results: A total of 4877 protein aptamers were measured among 10 638 participants at V3 (mean [SD] age, 60 [6] years; 4886 [46%] men). Overall, 286 proteins were associated with incident HF after V3 (822 events; P < 1.0 × 10-5), 83 of which were also associated with incident after V5 (336 events; P < 1.7 × 10-4). Among HF-free participants at V5 (n = 3908; mean [SD] age, 75 [5] years; 1861 [42%] men), 48 of 83 HF-associated proteins were associated with prevalent frailty (223 cases; P < 6.0 × 10-4), 18 of which were also associated with incident frailty at V6 (152 cases; P < 1.0 × 10-3). These proteins enriched fibrosis and inflammation pathways and demonstrated stronger associations with incident HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) than HF with reduced ejection fraction. All 18 proteins were associated with both prevalent frailty and incident HF in CHS. MR identified potential causal effects of several proteins on frailty and HF. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the proteins associated with risk of HF and frailty enrich for pathways related to inflammation and fibrosis as well as risk of HFpEF. Several of these proteins could potentially contribute to the shared pathophysiology of frailty and HF.

Changes in the diagnostic trajectory of transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis over six years.

Awareness of transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) has increased over the years due to diagnostic and therapeutic developments. Timely initiation of novel disease-modifying treatments improves both morbidity and mortality, which underlines the necessity for a prompt diagnosis. Nevertheless, early diagnosis of ATTR-CM remains challenging. This is a retrospective observational cohort study of patients diagnosed with ATTR-CM. Between 2016 and 2023, 87 patients were diagnosed with cardiac amyloidosis of which 65 (75%) patients with ATTR-CM and 22 (25%) patients with light chain amyloidosis. This study included 65 ATTR-CM patients (mean age 77 ± 7 years; 86% male) of whom 59 (91%) with wild-type ATTR-CM (ATTRwt) and six (9%) with variant ATTR-CM. We observed a surge in ATTR-CM diagnoses from 3 patients/year (2016-2020) to 16 patients/year (2021-2023), driven by ATTRwt. Nevertheless, the interval between the onset of heart failure symptoms and ATTR-CM diagnosis has not changed significantly (2016-2020 27.3 months [18.6-62.4]; 2021-2023 30.0 months [8.6-57.2]; p = 0.546), driven by time to referral. Red flags for ATTR-CM preceded diagnosis by several years: left ventricular hypertrophy (79%, 5.8 years [3.3-7.0]) and carpal tunnel syndrome (49%, 6.8 years [2.3-12.1]). Despite the presence of typical red flags, symptom-to-diagnosis duration has remained similar driven by time to referral. Improved recognition of red flags for ATTR-CM could reduce the time to diagnosis and improve overall recognition.

Webtool to enhance the accuracy of diagnostic algorithms for HFpEF: a prospective cross-over study.

AIMS: Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) can be challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the potential of a webtool to enhance the scoring accuracy when applying the complex HFA-PEFF and H2 FPEF algorithms, which are commonly used for diagnosing HFpEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed an online tool, the HFpEF calculator, that enables the automatic calculation of current HFpEF algorithms. We assessed the accuracy of manual vs. automatic scoring, defined as the percentage of correct scores, in a cohort of cardiologists with varying clinical experience. Cardiologists scored eight online clinical cases using a triple cross-over design (i.e. two manual-two automatic-two manual-two automatic). Data were analysed in study completers (n = 55, 29% heart failure specialists, 42% general cardiologists, and 29% cardiology residents). Manually calculated scores were correct in 50% (HFA-PEFF: 50% [50-75]; H2 FPEF: 50% [38-50]). Correct scoring improved to 100% using the HFpEF calculator (HFA-PEFF: 100% [88-100], P < 0.001; H2 FPEF: 100% [75-100], P < 0.001). Time spent on clinical cases was similar between scoring methods (±4 min). When corrections for faulty algorithm scores were displayed, cardiologists changed their diagnostic decision in up to 67% of cases. At least 67% of cardiologists preferred using the online tool for future cases in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Manual calculation of HFpEF diagnostic algorithms is often inaccurate. Using an automated webtool to calculate HFpEF algorithms significantly improved correct scoring. This new approach may impact the eventual diagnostic decision in up to two-thirds of cases, supporting its routine use in clinical practice.

Use of artificial intelligence to assess the risk of coronary artery disease without additional (non-invasive) testing: validation in a low-risk to intermediate-risk outpatient clinic cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Predicting the presence or absence of coronary artery disease (CAD) is clinically important. Pretest probability (PTP) and CAD consortium clinical (CAD2) model and risk scores used in the guidelines are not sufficiently accurate as the only guidance for applying invasive testing or discharging a patient. Artificial intelligence without the need of additional non-invasive testing is not yet used in this context, as previous results of the model are promising, but available in high-risk population only. Still, validation in low-risk patients, which is clinically most relevant, is lacking. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Secondary outpatient clinic care in one Dutch academic hospital. PARTICIPANTS: We included 696 patients referred from primary care for further testing regarding the presence or absence of CAD. The results were compared with PTP and CAD2 using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (area under the curve (AUC)). CAD was defined by a coronary stenosis >50% in at least one coronary vessel in invasive coronary or CT angiography, or having a coronary event within 6 months. OUTCOME MEASURES: The first cohort validating the memetic pattern-based algorithm (MPA) model developed in two high-risk populations in a low-risk to intermediate-risk cohort to improve risk stratification for non-invasive diagnosis of the presence or absence of CAD. RESULTS: The population contained 49% male, average age was 65.6±12.6 years. 16.2% had CAD. The AUCs of the MPA model, the PTP and the CAD2 were 0.87, 0.80, and 0.82, respectively. Applying the MPA model resulted in possible discharge of 67.7% of the patients with an acceptable CAD rate of 4.2%. CONCLUSIONS: In this low-risk to intermediate-risk population, the MPA model provides a good risk stratification of presence or absence of CAD with a better ROC compared with traditional risk scores. The results are promising but need prospective confirmation.

Fluid REStriction in Heart Failure vs Liberal Fluid UPtake: Rationale and Design of the Randomized FRESH-UP Study.

AIMS: It is common practice for clinicians to advise fluid restriction in patients with heart failure (HF), but data from clinical trials are lacking. Moreover, fluid restriction is associated with thirst distress and may adversely impact quality of life (QoL). To address this gap in evidence, the Fluid REStriction in Heart failure vs liberal fluid UPtake (FRESH-UP) study was initiated. METHODS: The FRESH-UP study is a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter trial to investigate the effects of a 3-month period of liberal fluid intake vs fluid restriction (1500 mL/day) on QoL in outpatients with chronic HF (New York Heart Association Classes II--III). The primary aim is to assess the effect on QoL after 3 months using the Overall Summary Score of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Thirst distress, as assessed by the Thirst Distress Scale for patients with HF, KCCQ Clinical Summary Score, each of the KCCQ domains and clinically meaningful changes in these scores, the EQ-5D-5L, patient-reported fluid intake and safety (ie, death, HF hospitalizations) are secondary outcomes. The FRESH-UP study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04551729). CONCLUSION: The results of the FRESH-UP study will add substantially to the level of evidence concerning fluid management in chronic HF and may impact the QoL of these patients.

Improving diagnosis and risk stratification across the ejection fraction spectrum: the Maastricht Cardiomyopathy registry.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) represents a clinical syndrome resulting from different aetiologies and degrees of heart diseases. Among these, a key role is played by primary heart muscle disease (cardiomyopathies), which are the combination of multifactorial environmental insults in the presence or absence of a known genetic predisposition. The aim of the Maastricht Cardiomyopathy registry (mCMP-registry; NCT04976348) is to improve (early) diagnosis, risk stratification, and management of cardiomyopathy phenotypes beyond the limits of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: The mCMP-registry is an investigator-initiated prospective registry including patient characteristics, diagnostic measurements performed as part of routine clinical care, treatment information, sequential biobanking, quality of life and economic impact assessment, and regular follow-up. All subjects aged ≥16 years referred to the cardiology department of the Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+) for HF-like symptoms or cardiac screening for cardiomyopathies are eligible for inclusion, irrespective of phenotype or underlying causes. Informed consented subjects will be followed up for 15 years. Two central approaches will be used to answer the research questions related to the aims of this registry: (i) a data-driven approach to predict clinical outcome and response to therapy and to identify clusters of patients who share underlying pathophysiological processes; and (ii) a hypothesis-driven approach in which clinical parameters are tested for their (incremental) diagnostic, prognostic, or therapeutic value. The study allows other centres to easily join this initiative, which will further boost research within this field. CONCLUSIONS: The broad inclusion criteria, systematic routine clinical care data-collection, extensive study-related data-collection, sequential biobanking, and multi-disciplinary approach gives the mCMP-registry a unique opportunity to improve diagnosis, risk stratification, and management of HF and (early) cardiomyopathy phenotypes beyond the LVEF limits.

The prognostic impact of mechanical atrial dysfunction and atrial fibrillation in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: This study assessed the prognostic implications of mechanical atrial dysfunction in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients with different stages of atrial fibrillation (AF) in detail. METHODS AND RESULTS: HFpEF patients (n = 258) systemically underwent an extensive clinical characterization, including 24-h Holter monitoring and speckle-tracking echocardiography. Patients were categorized according to rhythm and stages of AF: 112 with no history of AF (no AF), 56 with paroxysmal AF (PAF), and 90 with sustained (persistent/permanent) AF (SAF). A progressive decrease in mechanical atrial function was seen: left atrial reservoir strain (LASr) 30.5 ± 10.5% (no AF), 22.3 ± 10.5% (PAF), and 13.9 ± 7.8% (SAF), P < 0.001. Independent predictors for lower LASr values were AF, absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, higher N-terminal-pro hormone B-type natriuretic peptide, left atrial volume index, and relative wall thickness, lower left ventricular global longitudinal strain, and echocardiographic signs of elevated left ventricular filling pressure. LASr was an independent predictor of adverse outcome (hazard ratio per 1% decrease =1.049, 95% confidence interval 1.014-1.085, P = 0.006), whereas AF was not when the multivariable model included LASr. Moreover, LASr mediated the adverse outcome associated with AF in HFpEF (P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Mechanical atrial dysfunction has a possible greater prognostic role in HFpEF compared to AF status alone. Mechanical atrial dysfunction is a predictor of adverse outcome independently of AF presence or stage, and may be an underlying mechanism (mediator) for the worse outcome associated with AF in HFpEF. This may suggest mechanical atrial dysfunction plays a crucial role in disease progression in HFpEF patients with AF, and possibly also in HFpEF patients without AF.

Re-appraisal of the obesity paradox in heart failure: a meta-analysis of individual data.

BACKGROUND: Higher body mass index (BMI) is associated with better outcome compared with normal weight in patients with HF and other chronic diseases. It remains uncertain whether the apparent protective role of obesity relates to the absence of comorbidities. Therefore, we investigated the effect of BMI on outcome in younger patients without co-morbidities as compared to older patients with co-morbidities in a large heart failure (HF) population. METHODS: In an individual patient data analysis from pooled cohorts, 5,819 patients with chronic HF and data available on BMI, co-morbidities and outcome were analysed. Patients were divided into four groups based on BMI (i.e. ≤ 18.5 kg/m2, 18.5-25.0 kg/m2; 25.0-30.0 kg/m2; 30.0 kg/m2). Primary endpoints included all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization-free survival. RESULTS: Mean age was 65 ± 12 years, with a majority of males (78%), ischaemic HF and HF with reduced ejection fraction. Frequency of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization was significantly worse in the lowest two BMI groups as compared to the other two groups; however, this effect was only seen in patients older than 75 years or having at least one relevant co-morbidity, and not in younger patients with HF only. After including medications and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin concentrations into the model, the prognostic impact of BMI was largely absent even in the elderly group with co-morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that obesity is a marker of less advanced disease, but does not have an independent protective effect in patients with chronic HF. Categories of BMI are only predictive of poor outcome in patients aged > 75 years or with at least one co-morbidity (bottom), but not in those aged < 75 years without co-morbidities (top). The prognostic effect largely disappears in multivariable analyses even for the former group. These findings question the protective effect of obesity in chronic heart failure (HF).

Diagnostic and prognostic implications of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction scoring systems.

AIMS: We sought to compare the generalizability and prognostic implications of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) scores (HFA-PEFF and H2 FPEF score) in Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) and Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibition to Improve Clinical Status and Exercise Capacity in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (RELAX) trial participants and matched controls from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Community (ARIC) study. METHODS AND RESULTS: Based on the respective scores, the study participants from the TOPCAT (N = 356), RELAX (N = 216), and ARIC (N = 379) studies were categorized as having a low, intermediate, or high likelihood of HFpEF. Age, sex, and race matched controls free of cardiovascular disease who had unexplained dyspnoea were used to evaluate the diagnostic performance. The prognostic value of scores was assessed using multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analyses. The median HFA-PEFF scores in the TOPCAT, RELAX, and ARIC studies were 5.0 [interquartile range (IQR): 5.0-6.0], 4.0 (IQR: 2.0-4.0), and 3.0 (IQR: 2.0-4.0), respectively. The median H2 FPEF scores in the three studies were 5.5 (IQR: 4.0-7.0), 6.0 (IQR: 4.0-7.0), and 3.0 (IQR: 2.0-5.0), respectively. A low HFA-PEFF and H2 FPEF score can rule out HFpEF with high sensitivity (99.5% and 99.6%, respectively) and negative predictive value (95.7% and 98.3%, respectively). A high HFA-PEFF and H2 FPEF score can rule-in HFpEF with good specificity (82.8% and 95.6%, respectively) and positive predictive value (79.9% and 90.4%, respectively). Among TOPCAT participants, the hazard for adverse cardiovascular events per point increase in HFA-PEFF and H2 FPEF score was 1.26 (95% confidence interval: 0.98-1.63) and 1.01 (95% confidence interval: 0.88-1.15), respectively. A higher H2 FPEF score was associated with lower peak oxygen intake in RELAX trial participants (adjusted P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The HFA-PEFF and the H2 FPEF scores are reliable diagnostic tools for HFpEF. The prognostic utility of HFpEF scores requires further validation in larger rigorously phenotyped populations.

Future perspective of heart failure care: benefits and bottlenecks of artificial intelligence and eHealth.

Tweetable abstract #eHealth and #ArtificialIntelligence (AI) bring new possibilities for #HeartFailure (HF) care. We elaborate on potential benefits of #AI in #HF and highlight important bottlenecks for its implementation. #Editorial #Cardiology.

Iron deficiency impacts prognosis but less exercise capacity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Whether and how iron deficiency (ID) impacts patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remain unclear. The aim of our study was to investigate the impact of ID on functional status, exercise capacity, and prognosis in HFpEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population consisted of 300 HFpEF patients. ID was defined as serum ferritin <100 µg/L or 100-300 µg/L and transferrin-saturation <20%. Baseline functional status, quality of life (HADS score and EQ 5D index), 6 min walking test, echocardiography, and outcome (all-cause mortality and combined all cause-mortality and HF hospitalization) were evaluated. ID was found in 159 (53%) patients. Patients with ID had a worse prognosis with a higher combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization after 4 years of follow-up (log rank = 0.008). Pulmonary hypertension, depression, and thyroid disease were more prevalent in the ID group. Multivariable analysis showed that ID was independently associated with body mass index (P = 0.003), pulmonary hypertension (P = 0.008), and thyroid disease (P = 0.01). Although patients with ID had a lower exercise capacity compared with patients without ID (393 m [294-455] vs. 344 m [260-441], P = 0.008), there was no significant correlation after multivariable correction for age, BMI, NT-proBNP, DM, and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients with ID have a worse prognosis and impaired exercise capacity compared with those without ID. However, although a trend was observed, after multivariable correction ID was no longer significantly associated with a reduced exercise capacity. This reflects that impaired exercise capacity in HFpEF is complex and seems multifactorial. Interestingly, pulmonary hypertension was an independent predictor of both ID and exercise capacity.

Polygenic Score for ß-Blocker Survival Benefit in European Ancestry Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: ß-Blockers (BBs) are mainstay therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, individual patient responses to BB vary, which may be partially due to genetic variation. The goal of this study was to derive and validate the first polygenic response predictor (PRP) for BB survival benefit in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients. METHODS: Derivation and validation analyses were performed in n=1436 total HF patients of European descent and with ejection fraction <50%. The PRP was derived in a random subset of the Henry Ford Heart Failure Pharmacogenomic Registry (n=248) and then validated in a meta-analysis of the remaining patients from Henry Ford Heart Failure Pharmacogenomic Registry (n=247), the TIME-CHF (Trial of Intensified Versus Standard Medical Therapy in Elderly Patients With Congestive Heart Failure; n=431), and HF-ACTION trial (Heart Failure: a Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training; n=510). The PRP was constructed from a genome-wide analysis of BB×genotype interaction predicting time to all-cause mortality, adjusted for Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure score, genotype, level of BB exposure, and BB propensity score. RESULTS: Five-fold cross-validation summaries out to 1000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms identified optimal prediction with a 44 single-nucleotide polymorphism score and cutoff at the 30th percentile. In validation testing (n=1188), greater BB exposure was associated with reduced all-cause mortality in patients with low PRP score (n=251; hazard ratio, 0.19 [95% CI, 0.04-0.51]; P=0.0075) but not high PRP score (n=937; hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.53-1.3]; P=0.448)-a difference that was statistically significant (P interaction, 0.0235). Results were consistent regardless of atrial fibrillation, ejection fraction (≤40% versus 41%-50%), or when examining cardiovascular death. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients of European ancestry with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, a PRP distinguished patients who derived substantial survival benefit from BB exposure from a larger group that did not. Additional work is needed to prospectively test clinical utility and to develop PRPs for other population groups and other medications.

Proteomic Evaluation of the Comorbidity-Inflammation Paradigm in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Results From the PROMIS-HFpEF Study.

BACKGROUND: A systemic proinflammatory state has been hypothesized to mediate the association between comorbidities and abnormal cardiac structure/function in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We conducted a proteomic analysis to investigate this paradigm. METHODS: In 228 patients with HFpEF from the multicenter PROMIS-HFpEF study (Prevalence of Microvascular Dysfunction in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), 248 unique circulating proteins were quantified by a multiplex immunoassay (Olink) and used to recapitulate systemic inflammation. In a deductive approach, we performed principal component analysis to summarize 47 proteins known a priori to be involved in inflammation. In an inductive approach, we performed unbiased weighted coexpression network analyses of all 248 proteins to identify clusters of proteins that overrepresented inflammatory pathways. We defined comorbidity burden as the sum of 8 common HFpEF comorbidities. We used multivariable linear regression and statistical mediation analyses to determine whether and to what extent inflammation mediates the association of comorbidity burden with abnormal cardiac structure/function in HFpEF. We also externally validated our findings in an independent cohort of 117 HFpEF cases and 30 comorbidity controls without heart failure. RESULTS: Comorbidity burden was associated with abnormal cardiac structure/function and with principal components/clusters of inflammation proteins. Systemic inflammation was also associated with increased mitral E velocity, E/e' ratio, and tricuspid regurgitation velocity; and worse right ventricular function (tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion and right ventricular free wall strain). Inflammation mediated the association between comorbidity burden and mitral E velocity (proportion mediated 19%-35%), E/e' ratio (18%-29%), tricuspid regurgitation velocity (27%-41%), and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (13%) (P<0.05 for all), but not right ventricular free wall strain. TNFR1 (tumor necrosis factor receptor 1), UPAR (urokinase plasminogen activator receptor), IGFBP7 (insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7), and GDF-15 (growth differentiation factor-15) were the top individual proteins that mediated the relationship between comorbidity burden and echocardiographic parameters. In the validation cohort, inflammation was upregulated in HFpEF cases versus controls, and the most prominent inflammation protein cluster identified in PROMIS-HFpEF was also present in HFpEF cases (but not controls) in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Proteins involved in inflammation form a conserved network in HFpEF across 2 independent cohorts and may mediate the association between comorbidity burden and echocardiographic indicators of worse hemodynamics and right ventricular dysfunction. These findings support the comorbidity-inflammation paradigm in HFpEF.

Risk of bias in studies investigating novel diagnostic biomarkers for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. A systematic review.

AIM: Diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the non-acute setting remains challenging. Natriuretic peptides have limited value for this purpose, and a multitude of studies investigating novel diagnostic circulating biomarkers have not resulted in their implementation. This review aims to provide an overview of studies investigating novel circulating biomarkers for the diagnosis of HFpEF and determine their risk of bias (ROB). METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic literature search for studies investigating novel diagnostic HFpEF circulating biomarkers in humans was performed up until 21 April 2020. Those without diagnostic performance measures reported, or performed in an acute heart failure population were excluded, leading to a total of 28 studies. For each study, four reviewers determined the ROB within the QUADAS-2 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. At least one domain with a high ROB was present in all studies. Use of case-control/two-gated designs, exclusion of difficult-to-diagnose patients, absence of a pre-specified cut-off value for the index test without the performance of external validation, the use of inappropriate reference standards and unclear timing of the index test and/or reference standard were the main bias determinants. Due to the high ROB and different patient populations, no meta-analysis was performed. CONCLUSION: The majority of current diagnostic HFpEF biomarker studies have a high ROB, reducing the reproducibility and the potential for clinical care. Methodological well-designed studies with a uniform reference diagnosis are urgently needed to determine the incremental value of circulating biomarkers for the diagnosis of HFpEF.

Limited role for fibroblast growth factor 23 in assessing prognosis in heart failure patients: data from the TIME-CHF trial.

AIM: Fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23) is an intensively studied biomarker at the crossroads of cardiovascular disease, heart failure (HF) and chronic kidney disease. Independent associations between increasing FGF23 levels and cardiovascular events were found in many, but not all studies. By analysing data from the TIME-CHF cohort, we sought to investigate the prognostic value of FGF23 in an elderly, multimorbid HF patient cohort. We determined differences between intact (iFGF23) and C-terminal FGF23 (cFGF23) regarding their prognostic value and their levels over time in different HF subgroups according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: In this multicentre trial of 622 patients with symptomatic HF aged ≥60 years, we determined iFGF23 and cFGF23 at baseline, 3, 6 and 12-month follow-up. In unadjusted analyses, cFGF23 significantly predicted all HF-related outcomes at all time points. The predictive value of iFGF23 was less and not statistically significant at baseline. After multivariable adjustments, the association between both cFGF23 and iFGF23 and outcome lost statistical significance apart from cFGF23 at month 3. Overall, patients with preserved and mid-range LVEF had higher levels of iFGF23 and cFGF23 than those with reduced LVEF. Levels decreased significantly during the first 3 months in mid-range and reduced LVEF patients, but did not significantly change over time in those with preserved LVEF. CONCLUSIONS: Fibroblast growth factor 23 is of limited value regarding risk prediction in this elderly HF population. Potentially heterogeneous roles of FGF23 in different LVEF groups deserve further investigation.

Validation of the HFA-PEFF score for the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: Diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is challenging. The newly proposed HFA-PEFF algorithm entails a stepwise approach. Step 1, typically performed in the ambulatory setting, establishes a pre-test likelihood. The second step calculates a score based on echocardiography and natriuretic peptides. The aim of this study is to validate the diagnostic value and establish the clinical impact of the second step of the HFA-PEFF score. METHODS AND RESULTS: The second step of the HFA-PEFF score was evaluated in two independent, prospective cohorts, i.e. the Maastricht cohort (228 HFpEF patients and 42 controls) and the Northwestern Chicago cohort (459 HFpEF patients). In Maastricht, the HFA-PEFF score categorizes 11 (4%) of the total cohort with suspected HFpEF in the low-likelihood (0-1 points) and 161 (60%) in the high-likelihood category (5-6 points). A high HFA-PEFF score can rule in HFpEF with high specificity (93%) and positive predictive value (98%). A low score can rule out HFpEF with a sensitivity of 99% and a negative predictive value of 73%. The diagnostic accuracy of the score is 0.90 (0.84-0.96), by the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve. However, 98 (36%) are classified in the intermediate-likelihood category, where additional testing is advised. The distribution of the score shows a similar pattern in the Northwestern (Chicago) and Maastricht HFpEF patients (53% vs. 65% high, 43% vs. 34% intermediate, 4.8% vs. 1.3% low). CONCLUSION: This study validates and characterizes the HFA-PEFF score in two independent, well phenotyped cohorts. We demonstrate that the HFA-PEFF score is helpful in clinical practice for the diagnosis of HFpEF.