Trial reportESC heart failure2020
Variation in clinical and patient-reported outcomes among complex heart failure with preserved ejection fraction phenotypes.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immunology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Expert review of clinical immunology · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Variation in clinical and patient-reported outcomes among complex heart failure with preserved ejection fraction phenotypes.ESC heart failure · 2020Trial
- Review
- Heterogeneity in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review of Phenotypic Classifications and Clinical Implications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Latest from the WISE: Contributions to the Understanding of Ischemia and Heart Failure among Women with No Obstructive Coronary Arteries.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Phenomapping in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: insights, limitations, and future directions.Cardiovascular research · 2023Review
- Patient Perspectives on the Burden of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction in a US Commercially Insured and Medicare Advantage Population: A Survey Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Considerations in the Interpretation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure With Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction.Journal of cardiac failure · 2022Article
- Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and Risk of Heart Failure Among Medicare Beneficiaries.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
- Association of liver fibrosis risk scores with clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: findings from TOPCAT.ESC heart failure · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.