Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,278

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Simple, Evidence-Based Approach to Help Guide Diagnosis of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Open access
Reddy, Yogesh N.V., Carter, Rickey E., Obokata, Masaru, Redfield, Margaret M., Borlaug, Barry A.·2018·Circulation

Abstract

Background: Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is challenging in euvolemic patients with dyspnea, and no evidence-based criteria are available. We sought to develop and then validate noninvasive diagnostic criteria that could be used to estimate the likelihood that HFpEF is present among patients with unexplained dyspnea to guide further testing. Methods: Consecutive patients with unexplained dyspnea referred for invasive hemodynamic exercise testing were retrospectively evaluated. Diagnosis of HFpEF (case) or noncardiac dyspnea (control) was ascertained by invasive hemodynamic exercise testing. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate the ability of clinical findings to discriminate cases from controls. A scoring system was developed and then validated in a separate test cohort. Results: The derivation cohort included 414 consecutive patients (267 cases with HFpEF and 147 controls; HFpEF prevalence, 64%). The test cohort included 100 consecutive patients (61 with HFpEF; prevalence, 61%). Obesity, atrial fibrillation, age >60 years, treatment with ≥2 antihypertensives, echocardiographic E/e’ ratio >9, and echocardiographic pulmonary artery systolic pressure >35 mm Hg were selected as the final set of predictive variables. A weighted score based on these 6 variables was used to create a composite score (H 2 FPEF score) ranging from 0 to 9. The odds of HFpEF doubled for each 1-unit score increase (odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.74–2.30; P <0.0001), with an area under the curve of 0.841 ( P <0.0001). The H 2 FPEF score was superior to a currently used algorithm based on expert consensus (increase in area under the curve of 0.169; 95% CI, 0.120–0.217; P <0.0001). Performance in the independent test cohort was maintained (area under the curve, 0.886; P <0.0001). Conclusions: The H 2 FPEF score, which relies on simple clinical characteristics and echocardiography, enables discrimination of HFpEF from noncardiac causes of dyspnea and can assist in determination of the need for further diagnostic testing in the evaluation of patients with unexplained exertional dyspnea.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circulationaha.118.034646

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 1,278

Metadata

Authors
Reddy, Y. N. V., Carter, R. E., Obokata, M., Redfield, M. M., & Borlaug, B. A.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2018-08-28
Volume
138
Issue
9
Pages
861-870
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2804511116
Cited by
1,278
References
6
FWCI
55.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Simple, Evidence-Based Approach to Help Guide Diagnosis of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.118.034646
The paper
Reddy, Y. N. V., Carter, R. E., Obokata, M., Redfield, M. M., & Borlaug, B. A. (2018). A Simple, Evidence-Based Approach to Help Guide Diagnosis of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.118.034646

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.