Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29660263›Full record

SynthesisESC heart failure2018

Characteristics and long-term prognosis of patients with heart failure and mid-range ejection fraction compared with reduced and preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Josephine Lauritsen, Finn Gustafsson, Jawdat Abdulla

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in ESC heart failure, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Highlights in heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. β-blockers may be detrimental in frail patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2024
    Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Mortality from Heart Failure with Mid-Range Ejection Fraction.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2022
    Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Josephine LauritsenDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital of Glostrup, Glostrup, 2600, Denmark.
Finn GustafssonDepartment of Cardiology B, The Heart Centre, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jawdat AbdullaDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital of Glostrup, Glostrup, 2600, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThis study aimed to assess by a meta-analysis the clinical characteristics, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization of patients with heart failure (HF) with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) compared with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND

resultsData from 12 eligible observational studies including 109 257 patients were pooled. HFmrEF patients were significantly different and occupied a mid-position between HFrEF and HFpEF: mean age 73.6 ± 9.8 vs. 72.6 ± 9.8 and 77.6 ± 7.2 years, male gender 59% vs. 68.5% and 40%, ischaemic heart disease 49% vs. 52.6% and 39.4%, hypertension 67.3% vs. 61.5% and 76.5%, atrial fibrillation 45.2% vs. 39.6% and 46%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 26.4% vs. 24.9% and 30.5%, estimated glomerular filtration rate 62 ± 30 vs. 63.3 ± 23 and 59 ± 22.5, use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors 79.6% vs. 90.1% and 68.7%, beta-blockers 82% vs. 89% and 73.5%, and aldosterone antagonists 20.3 vs. 31.5% and 26%, P-values < 0.05. After a mean follow-up of 31 ± 5 months, all-cause mortality was significantly lower in HFmrEF than in HFrEF and HFpEF (26.8% vs. 29.5% and 31%): risk ratio (RR) 0.95 [0.93-0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI)], P < 0.001, and 0.97 (0.94-0.99; 95% CI), P = 0.014, respectively. Cardiovascular mortality was lowest in HFmrEF (9.7% vs. 13% and 12.8%): RR = 0.81 (0.73-0.91), P < 0.001, and 1.10 (0.97-1.24; 95% CI), P = 0.13, respectively. HF hospitalization in HFmrEF compared to that in HFrEF and HFpEF was 23.9% vs. 27.6% and 23.3% with RR = 0.89 (0.85-0.93), P < 0.001, and RR = 1.12 (1.07-1.17), P < 0.001, respectively.

conclusionsThe results of this study support that HFmrEF is a distinct category characterized by a mid-position between HFrEF and HFpEF and with the lowest all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

Indexed as

RegistriesCause of DeathFollow-Up StudiesGlobal HealthHeart FailureHumansPrognosisRisk FactorsStroke VolumeSurvival RateTime FactorsBorderlineEjection fractionHeart failureMid-range

Identifiers

PMID29660263
PMCPMC6073025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.