Validation of heart failure algorithm for diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a meta‐analysis

Abstract

Abstract The aim of the meta‐analysis was to generate a more comprehensive understanding of the HFA‐PEFF score in the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and to pose clues in the field of scientific and clinical practice. Electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase were systematically searched. Studies investigating the use of the HFA‐PEFF score to diagnose HFpEF were included. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative Likelihood Ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under the curve of summary receiver operating characteristic, and superiority index were calculated. Five studies with 1521 participants were included in this meta‐analysis. In the pooled analysis of the ‘Rule‐out’ approach, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.98 (0.94, 1.00), 0.33 (0.08, 0.73), 1.5 (0.8, 2.5), 0.05 (0.02, 0.17), and 28 (6, 127). In the pooled analysis of the ‘Rule‐in’ approach, the pooled sensitivity and specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.69 (0.62, 0.75), 0.87 (0.64, 0.96), 5.5 (1.8, 16.9), 0.35 (0.30, 0.41), and 16 (5, 50). This meta‐analysis indicates that the HFA‐PEFF algorithm showed acceptable specificity and sensitivity for the diagnosis and exclusion of HFpEF. More relevant studies on the diagnostic validity of the HFA‐PEFF score are needed in the future.

Keywords

• Diagnosis
• HFA‐PEFF
• HFpEF
• Meta‐analysis