Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30980205›Full record

ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2019

Age-dependent differences in clinical phenotype and prognosis in heart failure with mid-range ejection compared with heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

Xiaojing Chen, Gianluigi Savarese, Ulf Dahlström, Lars H Lund, Michael Fu

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Xiaojing ChenDepartment of Cardiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. chenxiaojing_058@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1354-5053
Gianluigi SavareseDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ulf DahlströmDepartment of Cardiology and Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Lars H LundDepartment of Cardiology and Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Michael FuDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Linköping University · SEKarolinska Institutet · SESichuan University · CNUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHFmrEF has been recently proposed as a distinct HF phenotype. How HFmrEF differs from HFrEF and HFpEF according to age remains poorly defined. We aimed to investigate age-dependent differences in heart failure with mid-range (HFmrEF) vs. preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction. METHODS AND

results42,987 patients, 23% with HFpEF, 22% with HFmrEF and 55% with HFrEF, enrolled in the Swedish heart failure registry were studied. HFpEF prevalence strongly increased, whereas that of HFrEF strongly decreased with higher age. All cardiac comorbidities and most non-cardiac comorbidities increased with aging, regardless of the HF phenotype. Notably, HFmrEF resembled HFrEF for ischemic heart disease prevalence in all age groups, whereas regarding hypertension it was more similar to HFpEF in age ≥ 80 years, to HFrEF in age < 65 years and intermediate in age 65-80 years. All-cause mortality risk was higher in HFrEF vs. HFmrEF for all age categories, whereas HFmrEF vs. HFpEF reported similar risk in ≥ 80 years old patients and lower risk in < 65 and 65-80 years old patients. Predictors of mortality were more likely cardiac comorbidities in HFrEF but more likely non-cardiac comorbidities in HFpEF and HFmrEF with < 65 years. Differences among HF phenotypes for comorbidities were less pronounced in the other age categories.

conclusionHFmrEF appeared as an intermediate phenotype between HFpEF and HFrEF, but for some characteristics such as ischemic heart disease more similar to HFrEF. With aging, HFmrEF resembled more HFpEF. Prognosis was similar in HFmrEF vs. HFpEF and better than in HFrEF.

Indexed as

Stroke VolumeVentricular Function, LeftAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsComorbidityFemaleHeart FailureHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhenotypePrevalencePrognosisRegistriesRisk AssessmentAgeHFmrEFHFpEFHFrEFPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID30980205
OpenAlexW2937849142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.