ReviewHeart failure reviews2021
Diagnostic algorithm for HFpEF: how much is the recent consensus applicable in clinical practice?
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic narrative review of the evidence.Heart failure reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Diagnostic uncertainties in older inpatients with suspected heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a pilot cohort study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Observational
- Facilitators, barriers, and insights using an HFA-PEFF-based clinical decision support system: A proof-of-concept study.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #73: Diagnosis and management of right and left heart failure during pregnancy and postpartum.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction in Egypt: An Expert Opinion.Global heart · 2025Review
- HFpEF as systemic disease, insight from a diagnostic prediction model reminiscent of systemic inflammation and organ interaction in HFpEF patients.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Review
- The potential impact of hereditary hemochromatosis on the heart considering the disease stage and patient age-the role of echocardiography.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Update on the Value of Lung Ultrasound Examination in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Patients with Various Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- The Cardiomyocyte in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction-Victim of Its Environment?Cells · 2022Review
- Ubiquitin ligaseAmerican journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2021Article
- Sphingolipids in the Heart: From Cradle to Grave.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.