Background/Aims: The Heart Failure Association (HFA)-PEFF score is recognized as a simple method to diagnose heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between HFA-PEFF scores and cardiovascular outcomes in HFpEF patients. Methods: A total of 502 consecutive HFpEF patients were prospectively observed for up to 1,500 days. Cardiovascular outcomes were compared between two groups of patients, defined by their HFA-PEFF scores: those who scored 2–4 (the intermediate-score group) and those who scored 5–6 group (the high-score group). Overall, 236 cardiovascular events were observed during the follow-up period (median, 1,159 days). Results: Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that there were significant differences in composite cardiovascular events and HF-related events between the intermediate-score group and the high-score group (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001, respectively). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that the HFA-PEFF scores significantly predicted future HF-related events (hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11 to 2.50; p = 0.014); receiver operating characteristic analysis confirmed this relationship (area under the curve, 0.633; 95% CI, 0.574 to 0.692; p < 0.001). The cutoff HFA-PEFF score for the identification of HF-related events was 4.5. Decision curve analysis revealed that combining the HFA-PEFF score with conventional prognostic factors improved the prediction of HF-related events. Conclusions HFA-PEFF scores may be useful for predicting HF-related events in HFpEF patients.

BACKGROUND: Ezetimibe-statin combination therapy has been found to reduce low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in large trials. We sought to examine the differential effect of ezetimibe on MACEs when added to statins according to the presence of diabetes. METHODS: Randomized clinical trials with a sample size of at least 50 participants and at least 24 weeks of follow-up that compared ezetimibe-statin combination therapy with a statin- or placebo-controlled arm and reported at least one MACE, stratified by diabetes status, were included in the meta-analysis and meta-regression. RESULTS: A total of seven trials with 28,191 enrolled patients (mean age, 63.6 years; 75.1% men; 7,298 with diabetes [25.9%]; mean follow-up, 5 years) were analysed. MACEs stratified by diabetes were obtained from the published data (two trials) or through direct contact (five trials). No significant heterogeneity was observed among studies (I 2=14.7%, P=0.293). Ezetimibe was associated with a greater reduction of MACE risk in subjects with diabetes than in those without diabetes (pooled relative risk, 0.84 vs. 0.93; P heterogeneity=0.012). In the meta-regression analysis, the presence of diabetes was associated with a greater reduction of MACE risk when ezetimibe was added to statins (β=0.87, P=0.038). CONCLUSION: Ezetimibe-statin combination therapy was associated with greater cardiovascular benefits in patients with diabetes than in those without diabetes. Our findings suggest that ezetimibe-statin combination therapy might be a useful strategy in patients with diabetes at a residual risk of MACEs.
Arm ; Cholesterol, LDL ; Diabetes Mellitus ; Ezetimibe ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors ; Male ; Myocardial Infarction ; Population Characteristics ; Sample Size ; Stroke