Observational studyClinical cardiology2020
Respiratory support in acute heart failure with preserved vs reduced ejection fraction.
Observational study in Clinical cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Prognostic Value of Non-Invasive Ventilation in Patients with Acute Heart Failure.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Mechanical ventilation in patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema: a sub-analysis of the LUNG SAFE study.Journal of intensive care · 2022Article
- Quality of Heart Failure Care in the Intensive Care Unit.Journal of cardiac failure · 2021Review
- Importance of epicardial adipose tissue localization using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients with heart failure with mid-range and preserved ejection fraction.Clinical cardiology · 2021Article
- Respiratory support in acute heart failure with preserved vs reduced ejection fraction.Clinical cardiology · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is little evidence addressing the use and differential impact of respiratory support in acute heart failure (AHF) patients with preserved (HFPEF) vs reduced (HFREF) ejection fraction. Therefore, our objective was to determine the usage and clinical outcomes of critical care respiratory support in AHF across the two populations. HYPOTHESIS: Respiratory support would be associated with adverse outcome in both HFPEF and HFREF.
methodsWe identified HFPEF, HFREF, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) using International Classification of Disease-Ninth Edition codes in the National Inpatient Sample between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2014. We determined rates of IMV and NIV use. We identified predictors of need for IMV and NIV and the association between ventilation strategies and in-hospital mortality in HFPEF vs HFREF.
results1.3 million AHF-HFPEF and 1.7 million AHF-HFREF hospitalizations were included; 5.98% of AHF HFPEF hospitalizations included NIV and 0.57% included IMV. Among HFREF hospitalizations, fewer (4.1%) included NIV and more (0.93%) included IMV. In HFPEF hospitalization, NIV use was associated with 2.24-fold increased risk for death compared to no respiratory support in an adjusted model (HR 2.24 95% CI 2.05-2.44) and IMV use was associated with 2.85-fold increased risk for death (HR 2.85 95% CI 2.30-3.53). This increased risk of in-hospital mortality was similar among HFREF patients.
conclusionsUse of respiratory support is increasing among patients with both HFPEF and HFREF and associated with substantially increased mortality in both heart failure subtypes.
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.