ArticleESC heart failure2021
Prognostic value of reverse remodelling criteria in heart failure with reduced or mid-range ejection fraction.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Echo Chambers: Bias and Representation in Cardiac Imaging Datasets for Artificial Intelligence.Current cardiology reports · 2026Review
- Multi-Chamber Reverse Remodeling and Hemodynamic Force Realignment After SGLT2 Inhibitor Initiation in Real-World Heart Failure.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Metrics of left ventricular active relaxation reflect proteomic myocardial remodelling and reverse remodelling.ESC heart failure · 2026Article
- Impact of maintaining mild mitral regurgitation beyond 1 year after mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair.ESC heart failure · 2026Article
- Can Right Heart Catheterization Improve the Prediction of Positive Response to Resynchronization Therapy?Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Examination of the Suitability of Vericiguat in Non-Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Patients with Improved Ejection Fraction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Long-Term Renal Involvement in Association with Fontan Circulation.Pediatric cardiology · 2024Observational
- Cardiac reverse remodelling by imaging parameters with recent changes to guideline medical therapy in heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2023Review
- The optimal definition and prediction nomogram for left ventricular remodelling after acute myocardial infarction.ESC heart failure · 2023Observational
- Three-dimensional echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular geometric changes following acute myocardial infarction.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2023Article
- A review of biomarker and imaging monitoring to predict heart failure recovery.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Pharmacological Anti-Remodelling Effects of Disease-Modifying Drugs in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.Clinical drug investigation · 2022Review
- Prediction of Left Ventricular Reverse Remodelling: A Mini Review on Clinical Aspects.Cardiology · 2022Review
- Mass Customized Outlook for Regenerative Heart Failure Care.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Prognostic value of reverse remodelling criteria in heart failure with reduced or mid-range ejection fraction.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
17 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsReverse remodelling (RR) is the recovery from left ventricular (LV) dilatation and dysfunction. Many arbitrary criteria for RR have been proposed. We searched the criteria with the strongest prognostic yield for the hard endpoint of cardiovascular death. METHODS AND
resultsWe performed a systematic literature search of diagnostic criteria for RR. We evaluated their prognostic significance in a cohort of 927 patients with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% undergoing two echocardiograms within 12 ± 2 months. These patients were followed for a median of 2.8 years (interquartile interval 1.3-4.9) after the second echocardiogram, recording 123 cardiovascular deaths. Two prognostic models were defined. Model 1 included age, LVEF, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, ischaemic aetiology, cardiac resynchronization therapy, estimated glomerular filtration rate, New York Heart Association, and LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) index, and Model 2 the validated Cardiac and Comorbid Conditions Heart Failure score. We identified 25 criteria for RR, the most used being LVESV reduction ≥15% (12 studies out of 42). In the whole cohort, two criteria proved particularly effective in risk reclassification over Model 1 and Model 2. These criteria were (i) LVEF increase >10 U and (ii) LVEF increase ≥1 category [severe (LVEF ≤ 30%), moderate (LVEF 31-40%), mild LV dysfunction (LVEF 41-55%), and normal LV function (LVEF ≥ 56%)]. The same two criteria yielded independent prognostic significance and improved risk reclassification even in patients with more severe systolic dysfunction, namely, those with LVEF < 40% or LVEF ≤ 35%. Furthermore, LVEF increase >10 U and LVEF increase ≥1 category displayed a greater prognostic value than LVESV reduction ≥15%, both in the whole cohort and in the subgroups with LVEF < 40% or LVEF ≤ 35%. For example, LVEF increase >10 U independently predicted cardiovascular death over Model 1 and LVESV reduction ≥15% (hazard ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.18-0.90, P = 0.026), while LVESV reduction ≥15% did not independently predict cardiovascular death (P = 0.112).
conclusionsLeft ventricular ejection fraction increase >10 U and LVEF increase ≥1 category are stronger predictors of cardiovascular death than the most commonly used criterion for RR, namely, LVESV reduction ≥15%.
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.