Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30561266›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2018

High-Sensitivity Troponin I in Hospitalized and Ambulatory Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights From the Heart Failure Clinical Research Network.

Marat Fudim, Andrew P Ambrosy, Jie-Lena Sun, Kevin J Anstrom, Bradley A Bart, Javed Butler, Omar AbouEzzeddine, Stephen J Greene, Robert J Mentz, Margaret M Redfield and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Intersection of Type 2 Myocardial Infarction and Heart Failure.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Similarities and Differences Between HFmrEF and HFpEF.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Marat Fudim1 Duke Clinical Research Institute and Division of Cardiology Duke University Medical Center Durham NC.
Andrew P Ambrosy1 Duke Clinical Research Institute and Division of Cardiology Duke University Medical Center Durham NC.
Jie-Lena Sun1 Duke Clinical Research Institute and Division of Cardiology Duke University Medical Center Durham NC.
Kevin J Anstrom1 Duke Clinical Research Institute and Division of Cardiology Duke University Medical Center Durham NC.
Bradley A Bart2 Division of Cardiology Hennepin County Medical Center Minneapolis MN.
Javed Butler3 Division of Cardiology Stony Brook University Stony Brook NY.
Omar AbouEzzeddine4 Department of Cardiovascular Diseases Mayo Clinic Rochester MN.
Stephen J Greene1 Duke Clinical Research Institute and Division of Cardiology Duke University Medical Center Durham NC.
Robert J Mentz1 Duke Clinical Research Institute and Division of Cardiology Duke University Medical Center Durham NC.
Margaret M Redfield4 Department of Cardiovascular Diseases Mayo Clinic Rochester MN.
Yogesh N V Reddy4 Department of Cardiovascular Diseases Mayo Clinic Rochester MN.
Muthiah Vaduganathan5 Brigham and Women's Hospital Heart & Vascular Center and Harvard Medical School Boston MA.
Eugene Braunwald5 Brigham and Women's Hospital Heart & Vascular Center and Harvard Medical School Boston MA.
Adrian F Hernandez1 Duke Clinical Research Institute and Division of Cardiology Duke University Medical Center Durham NC.
Barry A Borlaug4 Department of Cardiovascular Diseases Mayo Clinic Rochester MN.
G Michael Felker1 Duke Clinical Research Institute and Division of Cardiology Duke University Medical Center Durham NC.
Clinical Research Institute · USDuke Medical Center · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USHarvard University · USHennepin County Medical Center · USMayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Florida · USStony Brook University · US

Funding

Tracking and Evaluation CoreU54GM115428 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MED CTR · PI GOMEZ-SANCHEZ, CELSO ENRIQUE · 2016 to 2025
$38.2M
MULTIDISCIPLINARY HEART &VASCULAR DISEASEST32HL007101 · NHLBI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI FREEDMAN, NEIL J. · 1985 to 2020
$9.8M
NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007101NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM115428
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background We sought to study the prevalence of high-sensitivity troponin and its association with cardiac structure and outcomes in ambulatory and hospitalized patients with heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction ( HF p EF ). Methods and Results A post hoc analysis utilized data from HF p EF patients: DOSE (Diuretic Optimization Strategies Evaluation) and CARRESS - HF (Cardiorenal Rescue Study in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure) enrolled patients hospitalized with acute HF p EF , and RELAX (Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibition to Improve Clinical Status and Exercise Capacity in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) enrolled ambulatory patients with HF p EF . High-sensitivity troponin I (hs-TnI) was measured in hospitalized patients at baseline, at 72 to 96 hours, on day 7, and on day 60. In ambulatory patients hs-TnI was measured at baseline and at week 24. In the ambulatory cohort, correlations between hs-TnI and cardiac structure and function were assessed. The association between hs-TnI and a 60-day composite of emergency room visits, readmissions, and death was assessed for hospitalized patients using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. The study population included 139 hospitalized and 212 ambulatory patients with HF p EF and hs-TnI measured at baseline. The median (25th, 75th percentiles) baseline troponin was 17.6 (11.1, 41.0) ng/L in hospitalized patients and 9.5 (5.3, 19.7) ng/L in ambulatory patients ( P<0.001). The prevalence of elevated hs-TnI (>99% percentile upper reference limit was 86% in hospitalized patients and 53% among ambulatory patients, with stable elevation in ambulatory patients during follow-up. HF p EF patients with a hs-TnI above the median were older with worse left ventricular hypertrophy and diastolic dysfunction. Continuously valued hs-TnI (per doubling) was associated with increased risk of composite end point (adjusted hazard ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.43; P=0.042). Conclusions Hs-TnI is commonly elevated among both hospitalized and ambulatory patients with HF p EF . Increased hs-TnI levels are associated with worse cardiac structure and increased risk of adverse events.

Indexed as

HospitalizationStroke VolumeVentricular Function, LeftAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkersFemaleHeart FailureHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime FactorsBiomarkersTroponin Iclinical outcomesheart failure with preserved ejection fractionhigh‐sensitivity troponin

Identifiers

PMID30561266
PMCPMC6405612
OpenAlexW2904476213

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.