Browsing by Author "Ponikowski, Piotr (7005331011)"

Aims: Classification of acute heart failure (AHF) patients into four clinical profiles defined by evidence of congestion and perfusion is advocated by the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)guidelines. Based on the ESC-EORP-HFA Heart Failure Long-Term Registry, we compared differences in baseline characteristics, in-hospital management and outcomes among congestion/perfusion profiles using this classification. Methods and results: We included 7865 AHF patients classified at admission as: ‘dry-warm’ (9.9%), ‘wet-warm’ (69.9%), ‘wet-cold’ (19.8%) and ‘dry-cold’ (0.4%). These groups differed significantly in terms of baseline characteristics, in-hospital management and outcomes. In-hospital mortality was 2.0% in ‘dry-warm’, 3.8% in ‘wet-warm’, 9.1% in ‘dry-cold’ and 12.1% in ‘wet-cold’ patients. Based on clinical classification at admission, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for 1-year mortality were: ‘wet-warm’ vs. ‘dry-warm’ 1.78 (1.43–2.21) and ‘wet-cold’ vs. ‘wet-warm’ 1.33 (1.19–1.48). For profiles resulting from discharge classification, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for 1-year mortality were: ‘wet-warm’ vs. ‘dry-warm’ 1.46 (1.31–1.63) and ‘wet-cold’ vs. ‘wet-warm’ 2.20 (1.89–2.56). Among patients discharged alive, 30.9% had residual congestion, and these patients had higher 1-year mortality compared to patients discharged without congestion (28.0 vs. 18.5%). Tricuspid regurgitation, diabetes, anaemia and high New York Heart Association class were independently associated with higher risk of congestion at discharge, while beta-blockers at admission, de novo heart failure, or any cardiovascular procedure during hospitalization were associated with lower risk of residual congestion. Conclusion: Classification based on congestion/perfusion status provides clinically relevant information at hospital admission and discharge. A better understanding of the clinical course of the two entities could play an important role towards the implementation of targeted strategies that may improve outcomes. © 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology

Aims: The Heart Failure Frailty Score (HFFS) is a novel, multidimensional tool to assess frailty in patients with heart failure (HF). It has been developed to overcome limitations of existing frailty assessment tools while being practical for clinical use. The HFFS reflects the concept of frailty as a multidimensional, dynamic and potentially reversible state, which increases vulnerability to stressors and risk of poor outcomes in patients with HF. Methods and results: The HFFS was developed through a Delphi consensus process involving 54 international experts. This approach involved iterative rounds of questionnaires and interviews, where a panel of experts provided their opinions on specific questions prepared by the Steering Committee. The experts were invited to vote and share their views anonymously, using a 5-point Likert scale over iterative rounds. An 80% threshold was set for agreement or disagreement for each statement. Twenty-two variables from four domains (clinical, functional, psycho-cognitive and social) have been selected for inclusion in the HFFS after the third round of the Delphi process. A shorter version (S-HFFS), including 10 variables, has also been developed for daily clinical use. Conclusions: The HFFS is a new multidimensional tool for the identification of frailty in patients with HF. It should also enables healthcare providers to identify potential ‘red flags’ for frailty in order to develop personalized care plans. The next step will be to validate the new score in patients with HF. © 2024 The Author(s). ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

[No abstract available]

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has published a series of guidelines on heart failure (HF) over the last 25 years, most recently in 2016. Given the amount of new information that has become available since then, the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC recognized the need to review and summarise recent developments in a consensus document. Here we report from the HFA workshop that was held in January 2019 in Frankfurt, Germany. This expert consensus report is neither a guideline update nor a position statement, but rather a summary and consensus view in the form of consensus recommendations. The report describes how these guidance statements are supported by evidence, it makes some practical comments, and it highlights new research areas and how progress might change the clinical management of HF. We have avoided re-interpretation of information already considered in the 2016 ESC/HFA guidelines. Specific new recommendations have been made based on the evidence from major trials published since 2016, including sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes mellitus, MitraClip for functional mitral regurgitation, atrial fibrillation ablation in HF, tafamidis in cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis, rivaroxaban in HF, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in non-ischaemic HF, and telemedicine for HF. In addition, new trial evidence from smaller trials and updated meta-analyses have given us the chance to provide refined recommendations in selected other areas. Further, new trial evidence is due in many of these areas and others over the next 2 years, in time for the planned 2021 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. © 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology

We sought to describe the clinical presentation, management, and 6-month outcomes in women with peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) globally. Methods and results: In 2011, >100 national and affiliated member cardiac societies of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) were contacted to contribute to a global registry on PPCM, under the auspices of the ESC EURObservational Research Programme. These societies were tasked with identifying centres who could participate in this registry. In low-income countries, e.g. Mozambique or Burkina Faso, where there are no national societies due to a shortage of cardiologists, we identified potential participants through abstracts and publications and encouraged participation into the study. Seven hundred and thirty-nine women were enrolled in 49 countries in Europe (33%), Africa (29%), Asia-Pacific (15%), and the Middle East (22%). Mean age was 31 ± 6 years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 31 ± 10%, and 10% had a previous pregnancy complicated by PPCM. Symptom-onset occurred most often within 1 month of delivery (44%). At diagnosis, 67% of patients had severe (NYHA III/IV) symptoms and 67% had a LVEF ≤35%. Fifteen percent received bromocriptine with significant regional variation (Europe 15%, Africa 26%, Asia-Pacific 8%, the Middle East 4%, P < 0.001). Follow-up was available for 598 (81%) women. Six-month mortality was 6% overall, lowest in Europe (4%), and highest in the Middle East (10%). Most deaths were due to heart failure (42%) or sudden (30%). Re-admission for any reason occurred in 10% (with just over half of these for heart failure) and thromboembolic events in 7%. Myocardial recovery (LVEF > 50%) occurred only in 46%, most commonly in Asia-Pacific (62%), and least commonly in the Middle East (25%). Neonatal death occurred in 5% with marked regional variation (Europe 2%, the Middle East 9%). Conclusion: Peripartum cardiomyopathy is a global disease, but clinical presentation and outcomes vary by region. Just under half of women experience myocardial recovery. Peripartum cardiomyopathy is a disease with substantial maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. © 2020 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.

The co-occurrence of cancer and heart failure (HF) represents a significant clinical drawback as each disease interferes with the treatment of the other. In addition to shared risk factors, a growing body of experimental and clinical evidence reveals numerous commonalities in the biology underlying both pathologies. Inflammation emerges as a common hallmark for both diseases as it contributes to the initiation and progression of both HF and cancer. Under stress, malignant and cardiac cells change their metabolic preferences to survive, which makes these metabolic derangements a great basis to develop intersection strategies and therapies to combat both diseases. Furthermore, genetic predisposition and clonal haematopoiesis are common drivers for both conditions and they hold great clinical relevance in the context of personalized medicine. Additionally, altered angiogenesis is a common hallmark for failing hearts and tumours and represents a promising substrate to target in both diseases. Cardiac cells and malignant cells interact with their surrounding environment called stroma. This interaction mediates the progression of the two pathologies and understanding the structure and function of each stromal component may pave the way for innovative therapeutic strategies and improved outcomes in patients. The interdisciplinary collaboration between cardiologists and oncologists is essential to establish unified guidelines. To this aim, pre-clinical models that mimic the human situation, where both pathologies coexist, are needed to understand all the aspects of the bidirectional relationship between cancer and HF. Finally, adequately powered clinical studies, including patients from all ages, and men and women, with proper adjudication of both cancer and cardiovascular endpoints, are essential to accurately study these two pathologies at the same time. © 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has important implications for the safety of participants in clinical trials and the research staff caring for them and, consequently, for the trials themselves. Patients with heart failure may be at greater risk of infection with COVID-19 and the consequences might also be more serious, but they are also at risk of adverse outcomes if their clinical care is compromised. As physicians and clinical trialists, it is our responsibility to ensure safe and effective care is delivered to trial participants without affecting the integrity of the trial. The social contract with our patients demands no less. Many regulatory authorities from different world regions have issued guidance statements regarding the conduct of clinical trials during this COVID-19 crisis. However, international trials may benefit from expert guidance from a global panel of experts to supplement local advice and regulations, thereby enhancing the safety of participants and the integrity of the trial. Accordingly, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology on 21 and 22 March 2020 conducted web-based meetings with expert clinical trialists in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and Asia. The main objectives of this Expert Position Paper are to highlight the challenges that this pandemic poses for the conduct of clinical trials in heart failure and to offer advice on how they might be overcome, with some practical examples. While this panel of experts are focused on heart failure clinical trials, these discussions and recommendations may apply to clinical trials in other therapeutic areas. © 2020 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020.

Congestion is a cardinal sign of heart failure (HF). In the past, it was seen as a homogeneous epiphenomenon that identified patients with advanced HF. However, current evidence shows that congestion in HF varies in quantity and distribution. This updated view advocates for a congestive-driven classification of HF according to onset (acute vs. chronic), regional distribution (systemic vs. pulmonary), compartment of distribution (intravascular vs. extravascular), and clinical vs. subclinical. Thus, this review will focus on the utility of circulating biomarkers for assessing and managing the different fluid overload phenotypes. This discussion focused on the clinical utility of the natriuretic peptides, carbohydrate antigen 125 (also called mucin 16), bio-adrenomedullin and mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin, ST2 (also known as interleukin-1 receptor-like 1), cluster of differentiation 146, troponin, C-terminal pro-endothelin-1, and parameters of haemoconcentration. The utility of circulation biomarkers on top of clinical evaluation, haemodynamics, and imaging needs to be better determined by dedicated studies. Some multiparametric frameworks in which these tools contribute to management are proposed. © 2022 European Society of Cardiology.

The authors regret <16Cardiovascular and Cell Sciences Research Institute, St George's University, London, UK; IRCCS San Raffaele Pisana, Rome, Italy.>. Please substitute with 16Centre for Clinical and Basic Research, Department of Medical Sciences, IRCCS San Raffaele Pisana, Rome, Italy The author would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. © 2020

Patients with heart failure (HF) who contract SARS-CoV-2 infection are at a higher risk of cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Regardless of therapeutic attempts in COVID-19, vaccination remains the most promising global approach at present for controlling this disease. There are several concerns and misconceptions regarding the clinical indications, optimal mode of delivery, safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for patients with HF. This document provides guidance to all healthcare professionals regarding the implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination scheme in patients with HF. COVID-19 vaccination is indicated in all patients with HF, including those who are immunocompromised (e.g. after heart transplantation receiving immunosuppressive therapy) and with frailty syndrome. It is preferable to vaccinate against COVID-19 patients with HF in an optimal clinical state, which would include clinical stability, adequate hydration and nutrition, optimized treatment of HF and other comorbidities (including iron deficiency), but corrective measures should not be allowed to delay vaccination. Patients with HF who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 need to continue precautionary measures, including the use of facemasks, hand hygiene and social distancing. Knowledge on strategies preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (including the COVID-19 vaccination) should be included in the comprehensive educational programmes delivered to patients with HF. © 2021 European Society of Cardiology

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is common in patients with heart failure (HF) and associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Significant advances have recently occurred in the treatment of T2DM, with evidence of several new glucose-lowering medications showing either neutral or beneficial cardiovascular effects. However, some of these agents have safety characteristics with strong practical implications in HF [i.e. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), and sodium–glucose co-transporter type 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors]. Regarding safety of DPP-4 inhibitors, saxagliptin is not recommended in HF because of a greater risk of HF hospitalisation. There is no compelling evidence of excess HF risk with the other DPP-4 inhibitors. GLP-1 RAs have an overall neutral effect on HF outcomes. However, a signal of harm suggested in two small trials of liraglutide in patients with reduced ejection fraction indicates that their role remains to be defined in established HF. SGLT-2 inhibitors (empagliflozin, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin) have shown a consistent reduction in the risk of HF hospitalisation regardless of baseline cardiovascular risk or history of HF. Accordingly, SGLT-2 inhibitors could be recommended to prevent HF hospitalisation in patients with T2DM and established cardiovascular disease or with multiple risk factors. The recently completed trial with dapagliflozin has shown a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality and HF events in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction, with or without T2DM. Several ongoing trials will assess whether the results observed with dapagliflozin could be extended to other SGLT-2 inhibitors in the treatment of HF, with either preserved or reduced ejection fraction, regardless of the presence of T2DM. This position paper aims to summarise relevant clinical trial evidence concerning the role and safety of new glucose-lowering therapies in patients with HF. © 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology

Background To contribute to the protocol development of exercise training in LVAD supported patients by reviewing the exercise programs for those patients in the ESC affiliated countries. Methods A subset of data from 77 (26 countries) LVAD implanting centers that participated in the Extra-HF survey (170 centers) was analyzed. Results Of the 77 LVAD implanting centers, 45 (58%) reported to have a functioning exercise training program (ETP) for LVAD patients. In 21 (47%) of the 45 ETP programs in LVAD implanting centers, patients begin their ETP during their in-hospital post-operative recovery period. Most centers (71%) have an early post-discharge program for their patients, and 24% of the centers offer a long-term maintenance program. The professionals involved in the ETPs are mainly physiotherapists (73%), psychologists, cardiac rehab nurses (22%), or cardiologists specialized in rehabilitation (22%). Not all programs include the treating cardiologist or surgeons. Most of the ETPs (84%) include aerobic endurance training, mostly cycling (73%), or walking (62%) at low intensity intervals. Some programs apply resistance training (47%), respiratory muscle training (55%), or balance training (44%). Reasons for the absence of ETPs are referral of patients to another center (14 centers) and lack of resources (11 centers). Conclusion There is a great variance in ETPs in LVAD implanting centers. Not all the implanting centers have an ETP, and those that do have adopted a local protocol. Clear guidance on ETP supplied by LVAD implanting centers to LVAD supported patients and more evidence for optimal modalities are needed. © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

The accepted use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology as a good alternative for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure together with the improved survival of patients on the device and the scarcity of donor hearts has significantly increased the population of LVAD supported patients. Device-related, and patient–device interaction complications impose a significant burden on the medical system exceeding the capacity of LVAD implanting centres. The probability of an LVAD supported patient presenting with medical emergency to a local ambulance team, emergency department medical team and internal or surgical wards in a non-LVAD implanting centre is increasing. The purpose of this paper is to supply the immediate tools needed by the non-LVAD specialized physician — ambulance clinicians, emergency ward physicians, general cardiologists, and internists — to comply with the medical needs of this fast-growing population of LVAD supported patients. The different issues discussed will follow the patient's pathway from the ambulance to the emergency department, and from the emergency department to the internal or surgical wards and eventually back to the general practitioner. © 2021 European Society of Cardiology.

The improvement in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology and scarcity of donor hearts have increased dramatically the population of the LVAD-supported patients and the probability of those patients to present to the emergency department with expected and non-expected device-related and patient–device interaction complications. The ageing of the LVAD-supported patients, mainly those supported with the ‘destination therapy’ indication, increases the risk for those patients to suffer from other co-morbidities common in the older population. In this second part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, definitions and structured approach to the LVAD-supported patient presenting to the emergency department with bleeding, neurological event, pump thrombosis, chest pain, syncope, and other events are presented. The very challenging issue of declaring death in an LVAD-supported patient, as the circulation is artificially preserved by the device despite no other signs of life, is also discussed in detail. © 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

The Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has recently issued a position paper on the role of sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in heart failure (HF). The present document provides an update of the position paper, based of new clinical trial evidence. Accordingly, the following recommendations are given:. • Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin empagliflozin, or ertugliflozin are recommended for the prevention of HF hospitalization in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease or at high cardiovascular risk. • Dapagliflozin or empagliflozin are recommended to reduce the combined risk of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death in symptomatic patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction already receiving guideline-directed medical therapy regardless of the presence of type 2 diabetes mellitus. © 2020 European Society of Cardiology

Despite improvements over recent years, morbidity and mortality associated with heart failure (HF) are higher in countries in the Central and Eastern Europe and Baltic region than in Western Europe. With the goal of improving the standard of HF care and patient outcomes in the Central and Eastern Europe and Baltic region, this review aimed to identify the main barriers to optimal HF care and potential areas for improvement. This information was used to suggest methods to improve HF management and decrease the burden of HF in the region that can be implemented at the national and regional levels. We performed a literature search to collect information about HF epidemiology in 11 countries in the region (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Serbia, and Slovenia). The prevalence of HF in the region was 1.6–4.7%, and incidence was 3.1–6.0 per 1000 person-years. Owing to the scarcity of published data on HF management in these countries, we also collected insights on local HF care and management practices via two surveys of 11 HF experts representing the 11 countries. Based on the combined results of the literature review and surveys, we created national HF care and management profiles for each country and developed a common patient pathway for HF for the region. We identified five main barriers to optimal HF care: (i) lack of epidemiological data, (ii) low awareness of HF, (iii) lack of national HF strategies, (iv) infrastructure and system gaps, and (v) poor access to novel HF treatments. To overcome these barriers, we propose the following routes to improvement: (i) establish regional and national prospective HF registries for the systematic collection of epidemiological data; (ii) establish education campaigns for the public, patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals; (iii) establish formal HF strategies to set clear and measurable policy goals and support budget planning; (iv) improve access to quality-of-care centres, multidisciplinary care teams, diagnostic tests, and telemedicine/telemonitoring; and (v) establish national treatment monitoring programmes to develop policies that ensure that adequate proportions of healthcare budgets are reserved for novel therapies. These routes to improvement represent a first step towards improving outcomes in patients with HF in the Central and Eastern Europe and Baltic region by decreasing disparities in HF care within the region and between the region and Western Europe. © 2024 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

Aims: We assessed the outcome of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with heart failure (HF) compared with patients with other cardiovascular disease and/or risk factors (arterial hypertension, diabetes, or dyslipidaemia). We further wanted to determine the incidence of HF events and its consequences in these patient populations. Methods and results: International retrospective Postgraduate Course in Heart Failure registry for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and CArdioVascular disease and/or risk factors (arterial hypertension, diabetes, or dyslipidaemia) was performed in 28 centres from 15 countries (PCHF-COVICAV). The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Of 1974 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 1282 had cardiovascular disease and/or risk factors (median age: 72 [interquartile range: 62–81] years, 58% male), with HF being present in 256 [20%] patients. Overall in-hospital mortality was 25% (n = 323/1282 deaths). In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with a history of HF (36%, n = 92) compared with non-HF patients (23%, n = 231, odds ratio [OR] 1.93 [95% confidence interval: 1.44–2.59], P < 0.001). After adjusting, HF remained associated with in-hospital mortality (OR 1.45 [95% confidence interval: 1.01–2.06], P = 0.041). Importantly, 186 of 1282 [15%] patients had an acute HF event during hospitalization (76 [40%] with de novo HF), which was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (89 [48%] vs. 220 [23%]) than in patients without HF event (OR 3.10 [2.24–4.29], P < 0.001). Conclusions: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with HF are at increased risk for in-hospital death. In-hospital worsening of HF or acute HF de novo are common and associated with a further increase in in-hospital mortality. © 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

The accepted use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology as a good alternative for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure together with the improved survival of the LVAD-supported patients on the device and the scarcity of donor hearts has significantly increased the population of LVAD-supported patients. The expected and non-expected device-related and patient–device interaction complications impose a significant burden on the medical system exceeding the capacity of the LVAD implanting centres. The ageing of the LVAD-supported patients, mainly those supported with the ‘destination therapy’ indication, increases the risk for those patients to experience comorbidities common in the older population. The probability of an LVAD-supported patient presenting with medical emergency to a local emergency department, internal, or surgical ward of a non-LVAD implanting centre is increasing. The purpose of this trilogy is to supply the immediate tools needed by the non-LVAD specialized physician: ambulance clinicians, emergency ward physicians, general cardiologists, internists, anaesthesiologists, and surgeons, to comply with the medical needs of this fast-growing population of LVAD-supported patients. The different issues discussed will follow the patient's pathway from the ambulance to the emergency department and from the emergency department to the internal or surgical wards and eventually to the discharge home from the hospital back to the general practitioner. In this first part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, after the introduction on the assist devices technology in general, definitions and structured approach to the assessment of the LVAD-supported patient in the ambulance and emergency department is presented including cardiopulmonary resuscitation for LVAD-supported patients. © 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

The growing population of left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-supported patients increases the probability of an LVAD- supported patient hospitalized in the internal or surgical wards with certain expected device related, and patient-device interaction complication as well as with any other comorbidities requiring hospitalization. In this third part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, definitions and structured approach to the hospitalized LVAD-supported patient are presented including blood pressure assessment, medical therapy of the LVAD supported patient, and challenges related to anaesthesia and non-cardiac surgical interventions. Finally, important aspects to consider when discharging an LVAD patient home and palliative and end-of-life approaches are described. © 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.

Making a firm diagnosis of chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a challenge. We recommend a new stepwise diagnostic process, the ‘HFA–PEFF diagnostic algorithm’. Step 1 (P=Pre-test assessment) is typically performed in the ambulatory setting and includes assessment for heart failure symptoms and signs, typical clinical demographics (obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, elderly, atrial fibrillation), and diagnostic laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography. In the absence of overt non-cardiac causes of. breathlessness, HFpEF can be suspected if there is a normal left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, no significant heart valve disease or cardiac ischaemia, and at least one typical risk factor. Elevated natriuretic peptides support, but normal levels do not exclude a diagnosis of HFpEF. The second step (E: Echocardiography and Natriuretic Peptide Score) requires comprehensive echocardiography and is typically performed by a cardiologist. Measures include mitral annular early diastolic velocity (e′), LV filling pressure estimated using E/e′, left atrial volume index, LV mass index, LV relative wall thickness, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, LV global longitudinal systolic strain, and serum natriuretic peptide levels. Major (2 points) and Minor (1 point) criteria were defined from these measures. A score ≥5 points implies definite HFpEF; ≤1 point makes HFpEF unlikely. An intermediate score (2–4 points) implies diagnostic uncertainty, in which case Step 3 (F1: Functional testing) is recommended with echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic exercise stress tests. Step 4 (F2: Final aetiology) is recommended to establish a possible specific cause of HFpEF or alternative explanations. Further research is needed for a better classification of HFpEF. © 2020 European Society of Cardiology