Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32160420›Full record

Trial reportESC heart failure2020

Variation in clinical and patient-reported outcomes among complex heart failure with preserved ejection fraction phenotypes.

Kelsey M Flint, Sanjiv J Shah, Eldrin F Lewis, David P Kao

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in ESC heart failure, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Immunology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Expert review of clinical immunology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kelsey M FlintDivision of Cardiology, Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Cardiology (111), Building F2, Room 143, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA.
Sanjiv J ShahDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Feinberg Cardiovascular Research Institute, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Eldrin F LewisCardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
David P KaoDivision of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Harvard University · USNorthwestern University · USRocky Mountain MS Center · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

A Closed-Loop Integrated Framework for development of Novel Treatment Strategies in Heart Failure (CLIFFNOTES-HF)K08HL125725 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI KAO, DAVID PETER · 2017 to 2021
$826k
American Heart Association 7IG3366030NHLBI NIH HHS K08 HL125725NHLBI NIH HHS L30 HL110124
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe aim of this study is to use six previously described heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) phenotypes to describe differences in (i) the biological response to spironolactone, (ii) clinical endpoints, and (iii) patient-reported health status by HFpEF phenotype and treatment arm in the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist Trial (TOPCAT). METHODS AND

resultsWe analysed 1767 patients in TOPCAT from the Americas. Using 11 clinical variables, patients were classified according to six HFpEF phenotypes previously identified in the I-PRESERVE and CHARM-Preserved studies. Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) measured health status. All phenotypes showed increase in potassium with spironolactone, although only three phenotypes showed significant increase in creatinine, and two phenotypes showed significant decrease in systolic blood pressure. Rate of the TOPCAT primary outcome (cardiovascular death, aborted cardiac arrest, or heart failure hospitalization) differed by HFpEF phenotype (P < 0.001) but not by treatment arm within each HFpEF phenotype. Baseline KCCQ score differed by HFpEF phenotype (P < 0.001), although some phenotypes with poor health status had lower rates of the TOPCAT primary outcome, and some phenotypes with better health status had higher rates of the TOPCAT primary outcome. However, within 3/6 phenotypes, higher baseline KCCQ score was associated with lower risk of the TOPCAT primary outcome. Change in KCCQ scores at 4 and 12 months did not differ among HFpEF phenotypes overall or by treatment arm.

conclusionsComplex, data-driven HFpEF phenotypes differ according to biological response to spironolactone, baseline health status, and clinical endpoints. These differences may inform the design of targeted clinical trials focusing on improvement in outcomes most relevant for specific HFpEF phenotypes.

Indexed as

Heart FailureHospitalizationHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPhenotypeStroke VolumeTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesHealth statusHeart failureHFpEFHospitalizationMortality

Identifiers

PMID32160420
PMCPMC7261552
OpenAlexW3011997255

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.