Automated Assessment of Echocardiograms to Aid Diagnosis of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Clicks: 10
ID: 327673
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #70 of 80 articles by views in European Heart Journal - Digital Health

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) using the HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores remains challenging in clinical practice, and relies on echocardiographic assessment. We aimed to determine whether diagnostic scoring based on automated deep learning interpretation of echocardiograms performs similar to manual measurements in diagnosing HFpEF. Methods We analyzed echocardiograms using an automated deep learning algorithm and manually in three cohorts: a test cohort (102 HFpEF patients diagnosed by right heart catheterization and echocardiography), an ambulatory validation cohort (129 HFpEF patients), and a diagnostic validation cohort (n = 427, of which 182 HFpEF and 245 non-HFpEF patients). We evaluated correlations between automated and manual HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores across cohorts, their correlation with pulmonary capillary wedge pressures (PCWP), and compared diagnostic accuracy using the area-under-the-curve (AUC). Results Automated and manual measurements showed good agreement across cohorts, with good correlations between HFA-PEFF (0.78-0.86) and H2FPEF (0.96-0.98) scores and similar correlations with PCWP. One in five patients with high-likelihood HFpEF based on manual HFA-PEFF scores were classified as intermediate-likelihood by automated scores due to lower estimated left atrial volumes, without consistent interaction with atrial fibrillation. AUCs for automated HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores did not consistently differ from manual scores (0.70 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66-0.74] vs. 0.71 [95% CI: 0.66-0.75], and 0.78 [95% CI: 0.73-0.82] vs. 0.75 [95% CI: 0.71-0.80], respectively). Conclusion HFA-PEFF and H2FPEF scores based on automated and manual echocardiographic analysis showed similar diagnostic accuracy, suggesting automated HFpEF diagnosis using deep learning analysis of echocardiograms is feasible.
Reference Key
openalex_W7208779443 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Constantijn S. Venema, Max F.g.h.m. Venner, Anouk Achten, Wouter Ouwerkerk, Anne G. Raafs, Sanne G.J. Mourmans, Maurits A. Sikking, Hans‐Peter Brunner‐La Rocca, Stéphane Heymans, Vanessa van Empel, Yoran Hummel, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Elke Hoendermis, Adriaan A. Voors, Joanna J. Wykrzykowska, Christian Knackstedt, Jasper Tromp, Jerremy Weerts
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal European Heart Journal - Digital Health
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/ehjdh/ztag142
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjdh/ztag142
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.