4.6 Article

H2FPEF score predicts 1-year rehospitalisation of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Journal

POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL JOURNAL
Volume 97, Issue 1145, Pages 164-167

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2019-137434

Keywords

heart failure

Funding

  1. Scientific Research Program for Young Talents of China National Nuclear Corporation [51001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study identified obesity, age, antihypertensive medications, echocardiographic results, and pulmonary artery pressure as independent predictors of 1-year readmission for HFpEF patients. The H2FPEF score demonstrated excellent predictive value for 1-year rehospitalisation of patients with HFpEF.
Background Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has received widespread attention in recent years. There is currently a lack of valuable predictors for the prognosis of this disease. Here, we aimed to identify a non-invasive scoring system that can effectively predict 1-year rehospitalisation for patients with HFpEF. Methods We included 151 consecutive patients with HFpEF in a prospective cohort study and investigated the association between H2FPEF score and 1-year readmission for heart failure using multivariate Cox regression analysis. Results Our findings indicated that obesity, age >70 years, treatment with >= 2 antihypertensives, echocardiographic E/e' ratio >9 and pulmonary artery pressure >35 mm Hg were independent predictors of 1-year readmission. Three models (support vector machine, decision tree in R and Cox regression analysis) proved that H2FPEF score could effectively predict 1-year readmission for patients with HFpEF (area under the curve, 0.910, 0.899 and 0.771, respectively; p<0.001). Conclusion Our study demonstrates that the H2FPEF score has excellent predictive value for 1-year rehospitalisation of patients with HFpEF.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available