Diagnostic and therapeutic practice for HFpEF across continents and regions: An international survey

Abstract

Aims: This study aims to evaluate the worldwide variations in the diagnosis and treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), using an HF survey distributed internationally to physicians, including both cardiologists and non-cardiologists. Methods and results: A group of HF specialists designed an independent, academic web-based survey focusing on HFpEF care and diagnosis, which was distributed via scientific societies and various social networks between 1 May 2023 and 1 July 2023. The survey included 1459 physicians (1242 cardiologists and 217 non-cardiologists) from 91 countries, with a mean age of 42 (34–49) years and 61% male. Most physicians (89.2%) defined HFpEF as left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%. Significant regional variations were observed in HFpEF management (P < 0.001 for all comparisons unless stated otherwise). Cardiologists managed 63.1% of HFpEF patients overall, with significant variability across regions (P < 0.001). The estimated HFpEF prevalence was highest in Eastern Asia and Western Europe and lowest in Africa and South America. Diagnostic practices varied: natriuretic peptide use ranged from 70%–74% in Africa to 95%–97% in Southern/Western Europe. Echocardiographic parameters showed regional differences, with diastolic stress testing used most in South-Eastern Asia (47% vs. 13–36% elsewhere). HFpEF scoring systems were most common in South-Eastern Asia (78%) and least in Africa (30.1%). Coronary artery disease screening approaches differed, with Eastern Asian physicians more likely to always perform routine angiograms (52%) compared with Northern Europeans (12%). Treatment preferences also varied regionally. Sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) was the preferred first-line treatment (45%–70% across regions), followed by diuretics. In an ideal setting, 52% would primarily use SGLT2i, 33% loop diuretics, and 22% beta-blockers. Drug availability differed significantly: SGLT2i was most available (88% overall), while ARNI was least available (61%). South America and Middle Eastern/Northern Africa reported lower availability of guideline-directed therapies. Multidisciplinary HF programmes were most common in Asia (70%) and least in Africa (24%). The perceived benefit of atrial flow regulator devices also showed significant regional differences. Conclusions: There are considerable global variations in the diagnosis and management of HFpEF. Most physicians favour SGLT2i despite regional disparities in health care resources and guideline adherence. Harmonized practices and improved access to comprehensive care can enhance outcomes of HFpEF patients worldwide.