ArticleJournal of cardiac failure2016
Evaluation of Novel Metrics of Symptom Relief in Acute Heart Failure: The Worst Symptom Score.
Article in Journal of cardiac failure, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrafiltration for acute heart failure.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Reassessing Phase II Heart Failure Clinical Trials: Consensus Recommendations.Circulation. Heart failure · 2017Guideline
- Body Weight Change During and After Hospitalization for Acute Heart Failure: Patient Characteristics, Markers of Congestion, and Outcomes: Findings From the ASCEND-HF Trial.JACC. Heart failure · 2017Trial
- Observational
- Urine sodium concentration after intravenous furosemide in dogs with acute congestive heart failure and correlation with treatment efficacy.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo characterize a novel "worst"-symptom visual analogue scale (WS-VAS) versus the traditional dyspnea visual analogue scale (DVAS) in an acute heart failure (AHF) trial.
backgroundAHF trials assess symptom relief as a pivotal endpoint with the use of dyspnea scores. However, many AHF patients' worst presenting symptom (WS) may not be dyspnea. We hypothesized that a WS-VAS may reflect clinical improvement better than DVAS in AHF. METHODS AND
resultsAHF patients (n = 232) enrolled in the Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation in Acute Heart Failure (ROSE-AHF) Trial indicated their WS at enrollment and completed DVAS and WS-VAS at enrollment and 24, 48, and 72 hours. Dyspnea was the WS in 61%, body swelling in 29%, and fatigue in 10% of patients. Clinical characteristics differed by WS. In all patients, DVAS scores were higher (less severe symptoms) than WS-VAS and the change in WS-VAS over 72 hours was greater than the change in DVAS (P < .001). Changes in DVAS were smaller in patients with body swelling and fatigue than in patients with dyspnea as their WS (P = .002), whereas changes in the WS-VAS were similar regardless of patients' WS. Neither score, nor its change, was associated with available decongestion markers (change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, weight or cumulative 72-hour urine volume).
conclusionsMany AHF patients have symptoms other than dyspnea as their most bothersome symptom. The WS-VAS better reflects symptom improvement across the spectrum of AHF phenotypes. Symptom relief and decongestion were not correlated in this AHF study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.