Handoko, M. Louis

BACKGROUND: Plasma NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) is commonly used to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but its diagnostic performance in the ambulatory/outpatient setting is unknown because previous studies lacked objective reference standards. METHODS: Among patients with chronic dyspnea, diagnosis of HFpEF or noncardiac dyspnea was determined conclusively by exercise catheterization in a derivation cohort (n=414), multicenter validation cohort 1 (n=560), validation cohort 2 (n=207), and a nonobese Japanese validation cohort 3 (n=77). Optimal NT-proBNP cut points for HFpEF rule out (optimizing sensitivity) and rule in (optimizing specificity) were derived and tested, stratified by obesity and atrial fibrillation. Derived cut points were tested in 3 additional validation cohorts (cohorts 4–6) in whom HFpEF was diagnosed by resting catheterization only (n=260), previous hospitalization for heart failure (n=447), or exercise echocardiography (n=517), respectively. RESULTS: Current recommended rule-out NT-proBNP threshold <125 pg/mL had 82% sensitivity (95% CI, 77%–88%) with a body mass index (BMI) <35 kg/m 2 , decreasing to 67% (95% CI, 58%–77%) with a BMI ≥35 kg/m 2 . A lower rule-out NT-proBNP threshold <50 pg/mL displayed good sensitivity with a BMI <35 kg/m 2 (97% [95% CI, 95%–99%]), with a modest decline in sensitivity with a BMI ≥35 kg/m 2 (86% [95% CI, 79%–93%]); diagnostic thresholds were confirmed in validation cohorts 1 and 2 (91% [95% CI, 88%–95%] and 86% [95% CI, 80%–93%] with a BMI <35 kg/m 2 ; 80% [95% CI, 74%–87%] and 84% [95% CI, 74%–93%] with a BMI ≥35 kg/m 2 ). Current consensus age- and BMI-stratified rule-in thresholds demonstrated only 65% specificity (95% CI, 57%–72%). Rule-in NT-proBNP threshold ≥500 pg/mL had 85% specificity (95% CI, 78%–91%) with a BMI <35 kg/m 2 (87% [95% CI, 80%–94%] and 90% [95% CI, 81%–99%] in validation cohorts), with 100% specificity at a BMI ≥35 kg/m 2 (93% [95% CI, 81%–100%] and 100% in validation cohorts). With a BMI ≥35 kg/m 2 , lower rule-in thresholds (≥220 pg/mL) provided good specificity (88% [95% CI, 73%–100%]; 93% [95% CI, 81%–100%] and 100% in validation cohorts). Findings were consistent in validation cohorts 3 through 6 (sensitivity of <50 pg/mL, 93%–98%; specificity of ≥500 pg/mL, 82%–89%). NT-proBNP provided no incremental discrimination among patients with history of AF; ≥98% of patients with AF and dyspnea were found to have HFpEF in our cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic unexplained dyspnea, current rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP diagnostic thresholds lead to unacceptably high error rates, with important interactions by obesity and AF status. In our study, NT-proBNP provided little value in those with AF and dyspnea because the presence of AF is by itself a robust biomarker of HFpEF. Use of separate rule-in and rule-out diagnostic thresholds stratified by BMI reduces miscategorization and can guide more appropriate use of exercise testing for possible HFpEF.

Background: Because of limited accuracy of noninvasive tests, diastolic stress testing plays an important role in the diagnostic work-up of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Exercise right heart catheterization is considered the gold standard and indicated when HFpEF is suspected but left ventricular filling pressures at rest are normal. However, performing exercise during right heart catheterization is not universally available. Here, we examined whether pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) during a passive leg raise (PLR) could be used as simple and accurate method to diagnose or rule out occult-HFpEF. Methods: In our tertiary center for pulmonary hypertension and HFpEF, all patients who received a diagnostic right heart catheterization with PCWP-measurements at rest, PLR, and exercise were evaluated (2014–2020). The diagnostic value of PCWP PLR was compared with the gold standard (PCWP EXERCISE ). Cut-offs derived from our cohort were subsequently validated in an external cohort (N=74). Results: Thirty-nine non-HFpEF, 33 occult-HFpEF, and 37 manifest-HFpEF patients were included (N=109). In patients with normal PCWP REST (<15 mmHg), PCWP PLR significantly improved diagnostic accuracy compared with PCWP REST (AUC=0.82 versus 0.69, P =0.03). PCWP PLR ≥19 mmHg (24% of cases) had a specificity of 100% for diagnosing occult-HFpEF, irrespective of diuretic use. PCWP PLR ≥11 mmHg had a 100% sensitivity and negative predictive value for diagnosing occult-HFpEF. Both cut-offs retained a 100% specificity and 100% sensitivity in the external cohort. Absolute change in PCWP PLR or V-wave derived parameters had no incremental value in diagnosing occult-HFpEF. Conclusions: PCWP PLR is a simple and powerful tool that can help to diagnose or rule out occult-HFpEF.