ArticleCardiology journal2021
Could autonomic nervous system parameters be still helpful in identifying patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction at the highest risk of all-cause mortality?
Article in Cardiology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bidirectional brain-heart communication in coronary heart disease: from coronary plaques to central autonomic networks.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
- Baroreflex sensitivity but not microvolt T-wave alternans can predict major adverse cardiac events in ischemic heart failure.Cardiology journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutonomic imbalance is associated with poor prognosis of patients with systolic dysfunction. Most of the previous data were written several years ago and constituted to cardiovascular or arrhythmic mortality. The current treatment of these patients has improved substantially over the last decades, and thus, the population at risk of death may have altered as well. Consequently, data on high-risk patients with systolic dysfunction in the modern era are sparse and those from previous trials may no longer be applicable. The aim herein, was to verify whether well-known autonomic indices - baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) and heart rate variability (HRV) - remain accurate predictors of mortality in patients with systolic dysfunction.
methodsNon-invasively obtained BRS and HRV were analyzed in 205 clinically stable patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40%. 28 patients died within 28 ± 9 month follow-up.
resultsBaroreflex sensitivity, low-frequency (LF) in normalized units, LF to high-frequency ratio and standard deviation of average R-R intervals were significantly associated with mortality; cut-off values of the highest discriminatory power for abovementioned parameters were ≤ 3.0 ms/mmHg, ≤ 41, ≤ 0.7 and ≤ 25 ms, respectively. In bivariate Cox analyses (adjusted for LVEF, New York Heart Association [NYHA] or absence of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator [ICD]) autonomic indices remain significant predictors of death.
conclusionsBaroreflex sensitivity and HRV - may still be helpful in identifying patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction at the highest risk of all-cause mortality, independently of LVEF, NYHA class, and ICD implantation.
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.