Prognostic impact of Framingham heart failure criteria in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Abstract Aims This study aims to assess prognostic impact of Framingham criteria for heart failure (FC‐HF) in patients with stable heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods and results In the prospective Karolinska‐Rennes (KaRen) study, we assessed stable HFpEF patients after an acute HF episode. We evaluated associations between the four descriptive models of HFpEF and the composite endpoint of all‐cause mortality and HF hospitalization. The descriptive models were FC‐HF alone, FC‐HF + natriuretic peptides (NPs) according to the PARAGON trial, FC‐HF + NPs + echocardiographic HFpEF criteria according to European Society of Cardiology HF guidelines, and FC‐HF + NPs + echocardiographic criteria according to the PARAGON trial. Out of the 539 patients enrolled in KaRen, 438 returned for the stable state revisit after 4–8 weeks, 13 (2.4%) patients died before the planned follow‐up, and 88 patients (16%) declined or were unable to return. Three hundred ninety‐nine patients have FC registered at follow‐up, and among these, the four descriptive models were met in 107 (27%), 82 (22%), 61 (21%), and 69 (22%) patients, and not met in 292 (73%). The 107 patients that had FC‐HF at stable state (descriptive model 1) could also be part of the other models because all patients in models 1–4 had to fulfil the FC‐HF. The patients in model 0 did not fulfil the criteria for FC‐HF but could have single FC. Of single FC, only pleural effusion predicted the endpoint [hazard ratio (HR) 3.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47–7.76, P = 0.004]. Patients without FC‐HF had better prognosis than patients meeting FC‐HF. The unadjusted associations between the four HFpEF descriptive models and the endpoint were HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.14–2.09, P = 0.005; HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.24–2.36, P = 0.002; HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.36–2.81, P = 0.001; and HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.45–2.91, P