Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26752417›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Comparison of Baseline versus Posttreatment Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure for Predicting Cardiovascular Outcome: Implications from Single-Center Systolic Heart Failure Cohort.

Jih-Kai Yeh, Yuan-Chuan Hsiao, Cian-Ruei Jian, Chao-Hung Wang, Ming-Shien Wen, Chi-Tai Kuo, Feng-Chun Tsai, Victor Chien-Chia Wu, Tien-Hsing Chen

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Jih-Kai YehDepartment of Cardiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
Yuan-Chuan HsiaoChang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Cian-Ruei JianChang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Chao-Hung WangHeart Failure Center, Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Keelung, Taiwan.
Ming-Shien WenDepartment of Cardiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
Chi-Tai KuoDepartment of Cardiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
Feng-Chun TsaiDepartment of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
Victor Chien-Chia WuDepartment of Cardiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
Tien-Hsing ChenDepartment of Cardiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
Chang Gung Memorial Hospital · TWChang Gung University · TWKeelung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital · TWXiamen Chang Gung Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe prognostic values of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during heart failure (HF) with acute decompensation or after optimal treatment have not been extensively studied. We hypothesized that posttreatment LVEF has superior predictive value for long-term prognosis than LVEF at admission does. METHODS AND

resultsIn Protocol 1, 428 acute decompensated HF (ADHF) patients with LVEF ≤35% in a tertiary medical center were enrolled and followed for a mean period of 34.7 ± 10.8 months. The primary and secondary end points were all-cause mortality and HF readmission, respectively. In total, 86 deaths and 240 HF readmissions were recorded. The predictive values of baseline LVEF at admission and LVEF 6 months posttreatment were analyzed and compared. The posttreatment LVEFs were predictive for future events (P = 0.01 for all-cause mortality, P < 0.001 for HF readmission), but the baseline LVEFs were not. In Protocol 2, the outcomes of patients with improved LVEF (change of LVEF: ≥+10%), unchanged LVEF (change of LVEF: -10% to +10%), and reduced LVEF (change of LVEF: ≤-10%) were analyzed and compared. Improved LVEF occurred in 171 patients and was associated with a superior long-term prognosis among all groups (P = 0.02 for all-cause mortality, P < 0.001 for HF readmission). In Protocol 3, independent predictors of improved LVEF were analyzed, and baseline LV end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) was identified as a powerful predictor in ADHF patients (P < 0.001).

conclusionsIn patients with ADHF, posttreatment LVEF but not baseline LVEF had prognostic power. Improved LVEF was associated with superior long-term prognosis, and baseline LVEDD identified patients who were more likely to have improved LVEF. Therefore, baseline LVEF should not be considered a relevant prognosis factor in clinical practice for patients with ADHF.

Indexed as

Stroke VolumeAcute DiseaseAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsAgedAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsBiomarkersFemaleHeart Failure, SystolicHumansMaleMiddle AgedMineralocorticoid Receptor AntagonistsPrognosisProspective StudiesSurvival AnalysisAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsBiomarkersMineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists

Identifiers

PMID26752417
PMCPMC4713430
OpenAlexW2236176756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.