Observational studyScientific reports2020
Association of patient-reported outcomes and heart rate trends in heart failure: a report from the Chiron project.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2020. 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.
- Proof-of-concept trial results of the HeartMan mobile personal health system for self-management in congestive heart failure.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- The implantable cardiac monitor in heart failure patient: a possible new indication?European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been previously considered "soft" end-points because of the lack of association of the reported outcome to measurable biological parameters. The present study aimed to assess whether electrocardiographic measures are associated to PROs changes. We evaluated the association between heart rate (HR), QRS and QT/QTc durations and PROs, classified as "good" or "bad" according to the patients' overall feeling of health, in patients from the Chiron project. Twenty-four chronic heart failure (HF) patients were enrolled in the study (71% male, mean age 62.9 ± 9.4 years, 42% ischemic etiology, 15 NYHA class II and 9 class III) providing 1086 days of usable physiological recordings (4 hours/day). The mean HR was significantly higher in the "bad" than in the "good" PROs class (74.0 ± 6.4 bpm vs 68.0 ± 7.2 bpm; p < 0.001). Conversely, the ratio between movement and rest activities showed significantly higher values in "good" compared to "bad" PROs. We also found significantly longer QTc and QRS durations in patients with "bad" PROs compared to patients with "good" PROs. That in patients with mild to moderate HF, higher HR, wider QRS and longer QTc, as well as a reduced HR ratio between movement and rest, were associated with "bad" PROs is clinically noteworthy because the association of worse PROs with measurable variations of biological parameters may help physicians in evaluating PROs reliability itself and in their clinical decisions. Whether a timely intervention on these biological parameters may prevent adverse outcomes is important and deserves to be investigated in further studies.
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.