ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2025
Prognostic Applications of Current Clinical Scores in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores were developed to support the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and may also help predict cardiovascular outcomes.
objectiveTo assess the prognostic value of these scores in a cohort of individuals with HFpEF.
methodsThis prospective study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Brazil between March 2019 and December 2021. After clinical evaluation, echocardiography, and exercise testing, the H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF scores were calculated. Patients were classified into intermediate probability groups (H2FPEF: 2-5 points; HFA-PEFF: 2-4 points) and high probability groups (H2FPEF >5 points; HFA-PEFF >4 points). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalizations due to HFpEF. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.
resultsA total of 103 patients were followed for an average of 888 days (±291). The mean age was 69 years (±8.3), and 61% were women. Twenty-seven patients (26.2%) experienced primary outcomes, totaling 32 events-11 deaths and 21 hospitalizations due to HFpEF. In the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, the H2FPEF score showed better predictive ability for the outcomes (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.637, 95% CI: 0.518-0.756, p=0.035) compared to the HFA-PEFF score (AUC: 0.572, 95% CI: 0.448-0.696, p=0.270). In the Kaplan-Meier analysis, high-probability classification by both scores was significantly associated with the occurrence of outcomes (log-rank p=0.034), compared to the intermediate score group or patients with differing classifications between the two scores.
conclusionsThe H2FPEF score showed better performance than the HFA-PEFF score in predicting outcomes in patients with HFpEF. Findings from this contemporary study conducted in Brazil contribute to risk stratification in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.