Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31713324›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of heart failure2020

Concentric vs. eccentric remodelling in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: clinical characteristics, pathophysiology and response to treatment.

Jan F Nauta, Yoran M Hummel, Jasper Tromp, Wouter Ouwerkerk, Peter van der Meer, Xuanyi Jin, Carolyn S P Lam, Jeroen J Bax, Marco Metra, Nilesh J Samani and 10 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of heart failure, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.6field-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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 12 institutions in 11 countries.

Jan F NautaDepartment of Cardiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Yoran M HummelDepartment of Cardiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Jasper TrompDepartment of Cardiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Wouter OuwerkerkDepartment of Cardiology, National Heart Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Peter van der MeerDepartment of Cardiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Xuanyi JinDepartment of Cardiology, National Heart Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Carolyn S P LamDepartment of Cardiology, National Heart Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Jeroen J BaxDepartment of Cardiology, Heart Lung Centre, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Marco MetraInstitute of Cardiology, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Nilesh J SamaniDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, UK.
Piotr PonikowskiDepartment of Heart Diseases, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland and Cardiology Department, Military Hospital, Wroclaw, Poland.
Kenneth DicksteinDepartment of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Stefan D AnkerInnovative Clinical Trials, Department of Cardiology and Pneumology, University Medical Centre Göttingen (UMG), Göttingen, Germany.
Chim C LangSchool of Medicine Centre for Cardiovascular and Lung Biology, Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee, UK.
Leong L NgDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, UK.
Faiez ZannadINSERM, Centre d'Investigations Cliniques Plurithématique, Université de Lorraine, CHRU de Nancy, Nancy, France.
Gerasimos S FilippatosSchool of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Dirk J van VeldhuisenDepartment of Cardiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Joost P van MelleDepartment of Cardiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Adriaan A VoorsDepartment of Cardiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Groningen · NLAmsterdam Neuroscience · NLUniversity of Leicester · GBFrench Clinical Research Infrastructure Network · FRLeiden University Medical Center · NLStavanger University Hospital · NOSurgical Specialties (Canada) · CAUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen · DEUniversité Bourgogne Franche-Comté · FRUniversity of Dundee · GBUniversity of Nicosia · CYWroclaw Medical University · PL

Funding

BiotronikBoston Scientific CorporationEdwards LifesciencesEuropean Commission FP7-242209-BIOSTAT-CHFGE HealthcareMedtronicVifor and Abbott Vascular
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsHeart failure is traditionally classified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), rather than by left ventricular (LV) geometry, with guideline-recommended therapies in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but not heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Most patients with HFrEF have eccentric LV hypertrophy, but some have concentric LV hypertrophy. We aimed to compare clinical characteristics, biomarker patterns, and response to treatment of patients with HFrEF and eccentric vs. concentric LV hypertrophy. METHODS AND

resultsWe performed a retrospective post-hoc analysis including 1015 patients with HFrEF (LVEF <40%) from the multinational observational BIOSTAT-CHF study. LV geometry was classified using two-dimensional echocardiography. Network analysis of 92 biomarkers was used to investigate pathophysiologic pathways. Concentric LV hypertrophy was present in 142 (14%) patients, who were on average older and more likely hypertensive compared to those with eccentric LV hypertrophy. Network analysis revealed that N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide was an important hub in eccentric hypertrophy, whereas in concentric hypertrophy, tumour necrosis factor receptor 1, urokinase plasminogen activator surface receptor, paraoxonase and P-selectin were central hubs. Up-titration of beta-blockers was associated with a mortality benefit in HFrEF with eccentric but not concentric LV hypertrophy (P-value for interaction ≤0.001). For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, the hazard ratio for mortality was higher in concentric hypertrophy, but the interaction was not significant.

conclusionPatients with HFrEF with concentric hypertrophy have a clinical and biomarker phenotype that is distinctly different from those with eccentric hypertrophy. Patients with concentric hypertrophy may not experience similar benefit from up.-titration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and beta-blockers compared to patients with eccentric hypertrophy.

Indexed as

Heart FailureAgedAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsFemaleHumansHypertrophy, Left VentricularMalePercutaneous Coronary InterventionRetrospective StudiesStroke VolumeVentricular Function, LeftAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsBiomarkersConcentric hypertrophyEccentric hypertrophyEchocardiographyHeart failureHeart failure with reduced ejection fractionLeft ventricular geometryMedical therapy

Identifiers

PMID31713324
PMCPMC7540540
OpenAlexW2983837781

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.