ArticleCJC open2019
Prognostic Value of Both Plasma Volume Status and Nutritional Status in Patients With Severely Decompensated Acute Heart Failure.
Article in CJC open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic Significance of Estimated Plasma Volume Status in Patients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2026Article
- Prognostic impact of plasma volume status during hospital admission in patients with acute decompensated heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2024Article
- Sex Differences in the Evaluation of Congestion Markers in Patients with Acute Heart Failure.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2022Article
- Impact of Estimated Plasma Volume Status on Mortality in Right Heart Failure Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study in Indonesia.Global heart · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlasma volume status (PVS) has been evaluated recently as a prognostic marker of acute heart failure (AHF). However, whether evaluating PVS alone is sufficient remains unclear.
methodsOf 675 patients with AHF screened, 601 were enrolled. The PVS, prognostic nutritional index (PNI) (lower = worse), and Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score (higher = worse) were evaluated. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to PVS value (low- or high-PVS group) and were further subdivided into 4 groups (low- or high-PVS/CONUT group and low- or high-PVS/PNI group).
resultsA Kaplan-Meier curve showed a significantly lower survival rate in the high-PVS group than in the low-PVS group, the high-PVS/high-CONUT group than in the high-PVS/low-CONUT group, and the high-PVS/low-PNI group than in the high-PVS/high-PNI group. A multivariate Cox regression model showed that high PVS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.642; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.049-2.570) and high PVS/high CONUT (HR, 2.076; 95% CI, 1.147-3.757) and high PVS/low PNI (HR, 2.094; 95% CI, 1.166-3.761) were independent predictors of 365-day mortality.
conclusionsAn adverse outcome was predicted by the evaluation of PVS; furthermore, a malnutrition status with a high PVS leads to an adverse outcome. The simultaneous evaluation of nutrition status and PVS is essential to predict an AHF outcome.
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.