Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32346825›Full record

ReviewHeart failure reviews2021

Diagnostic algorithm for HFpEF: how much is the recent consensus applicable in clinical practice?

Marijana Tadic, Cesare Cuspidi, Francesca Calicchio, Guido Grassi, Giuseppe Mancia

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Heart failure reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Ubiquitin ligaseAmerican journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2021
    Article
  12. Sphingolipids in the Heart: From Cradle to Grave.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020
    Review
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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Marijana TadicDepartment of Cardiology, University Hospital "Dr. Dragisa Misovic - Dedinje", Heroja Milana Tepica 1, Belgrade, 11000, Serbia. marijana_tadic@hotmail.com.
Cesare CuspidiUniversity of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Francesca CalicchioLundquist Institute at Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, 90502, USA.
Guido GrassiUniversity of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Giuseppe ManciaUniversity of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Fondazione Lanza · ITHarbor–UCLA Medical Center · USIRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano · ITUniversity Hospital Center Dr Dragiša Mišović · RSUniversity of Milano-Bicocca · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) represents an important cardiovascular entity with increasing prevalence and relatively high mortality. The agreement about diagnostic algorithm for HFpEF is still missing. Echocardiographic approach remains the cornerstone in HFpEF diagnosis. Echocardiographic diastolic stress test provides numerous useful parameters that correlated well with indexes obtained by cardiac catheterization. Recently published consensus recommended new scoring system that included functional and structural echocardiographic parameters, as well as biomarkers. The new score for evaluation of HFpEF introduces a new set of parameters and proposed novel cutoff values for some of them. There are several important points that need to be resolved before full acceptance and clinical usage. First, some cutoff values are new and represent the result of expert consensus, without previous validation. Second, many patients with hypertension, obesity, and diabetes would be referred for further investigations as the result of this scoring, which is difficult to achieve in clinical circumstances. Third, the consensus equalized non-invasive and invasive diastolic stress tests in diagnosing of HFpEF, which is not a small issue. Namely, even though cardiac catheterization provides the final confirmation of elevated left ventricular filling pressures, it is still an invasive method, associated with procedural risk and other limitations. The aim of this review was to summarize the current knowledge diagnosis of HFpEF, as well as the recent consensus about diagnostic algorithm in patients with suspected HFpEF with its advantages and disadvantages.

Indexed as

Heart FailureAlgorithmsConsensusHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicStroke VolumeVentricular Function, LeftCardiac catheterizationDiastolic stress testHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Identifiers

PMID32346825
OpenAlexW3018304667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.