Table 4.
Diagnostic accuracy to detect invasively proven HFpEF by CMR-derived PCWP.
| Variable | AUC (95% CI) | Significance | AUC (95% CI) | Significance | AUC (95% CI) | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HFpEF | Rest vs stress | Masked HFpEF | Rest vs stress | Overt HFpEF | Rest vs stress | |
| Left atrial volume | ||||||
| LAV PCWP rest | 0.73 (0.60-0.86) | 0.123 | 0.54 (0.39-0.70) | 0.019 | 0.79 (0.67-0.90) | 0.498 |
| LAV PCWP stress | 0.81 (0.70-0.92) | 0.67 (0.53-0.81) | 0.75 (0.63-0.88) | |||
| Left atrial area | ||||||
| LAA PCWP rest | 0.72 (0.60-0.85) | 0.360 | 0.52 (0.37-0.68) | 0.012 | 0.80 (0.68-0.92) | 0.147 |
| LAA PCWP stress | 0.77 (0.65-0.89) | 0.66 (0.52-0.81) | 0.71 (0.57-0.84) |
HFpEF heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, CMR cardiovascular magnetic resonance, PCWP pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, CI confidence intervals, LAV/LAA left atrial volume/area. The table shows the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the differentiation of patients with and without HFpEF and subgroups of masked and overt HFpEF. AUC analyses were compared using the nonparametric approach introduced by De Long et al.