Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32548911›Full record

ArticleESC heart failure2020

A registry-based algorithm to predict ejection fraction in patients with heart failure.

Alicia Uijl, Lars H Lund, Ilonca Vaartjes, Jasper J Brugts, Gerard C Linssen, Folkert W Asselbergs, Arno W Hoes, Ulf Dahlström, Stefan Koudstaal, Gianluigi Savarese

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

10 authors.

Alicia UijlDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lars H LundDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ilonca VaartjesJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jasper J BrugtsDepartment of Cardiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Thoraxcenter, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Gerard C LinssenDepartment of Cardiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo and Hengelo, The Netherlands.
Folkert W AsselbergsHealth Data Research UK London, Institute for Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Arno W HoesJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ulf DahlströmDepartment of Cardiology and Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linkoping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Stefan KoudstaalHealth Data Research UK London, Institute for Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Gianluigi SavareseDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

EU/EFPIA Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking BigData@Heart 116074
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsLeft ventricular ejection fraction (EF) is required to categorize heart failure (HF) [i.e. HF with preserved (HFpEF), mid-range (HFmrEF), and reduced (HFrEF) EF] but is often not captured in population-based cohorts or non-HF registries. The aim was to create an algorithm that identifies EF subphenotypes for research purposes. METHODS AND

resultsWe included 42 061 HF patients from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry. As primary analysis, we performed two logistic regression models including 22 variables to predict (i) EF≥ vs. <50% and (ii) EF≥ vs. <40%. In the secondary analysis, we performed a multivariable multinomial analysis with 22 variables to create a model for all three separate EF subphenotypes: HFrEF vs. HFmrEF vs. HFpEF. The models were validated in the database from the CHECK-HF study, a cross-sectional survey of 10 627 patients from the Netherlands. The C-statistic (discrimination) was 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-0.78] for EF ≥50% and 0.76 (95% CI 0.75-0.76) for EF ≥40%. Similar results were achieved for HFrEF and HFpEF in the multinomial model, but the C-statistic for HFmrEF was lower: 0.63 (95% CI 0.63-0.64). The external validation showed similar discriminative ability to the development cohort.

conclusionsRoutine clinical characteristics could potentially be used to identify different EF subphenotypes in databases where EF is not readily available. Accuracy was good for the prediction of HFpEF and HFrEF but lower for HFmrEF. The proposed algorithm enables more effective research on HF in the big data setting.

Indexed as

Heart FailureAlgorithmsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansNetherlandsPrognosisRegistriesStroke VolumeSwedenVentricular Function, LeftEjection fractionElectronic health recordsHeart failureHFmrEFHFpEFHFrEFPrediction

Identifiers

PMID32548911
PMCPMC7524089

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.