Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34002938›Full record

ArticleESC heart failure2021

Prognostic value of reverse remodelling criteria in heart failure with reduced or mid-range ejection fraction.

Alberto Aimo, Iacopo Fabiani, Giuseppe Vergaro, Chiara Arzilli, Vladyslav Chubuchny, Emilio Maria Pasanisi, Christina Petersen, Elisa Poggianti, Claudia Taddei, Nicola Riccardo Pugliese and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Mass Customized Outlook for Regenerative Heart Failure Care.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  15. 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

17 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Alberto AimoInstitute of Life Sciences, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy.
Iacopo FabianiCardiology Division, Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, Pisa, 56124, Italy.
Giuseppe VergaroInstitute of Life Sciences, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy.
Chiara ArzilliUniversity Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Vladyslav ChubuchnyCardiology Division, Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, Pisa, 56124, Italy.
Emilio Maria PasanisiCardiology Division, Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, Pisa, 56124, Italy.
Christina PetersenCardiology Division, Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, Pisa, 56124, Italy.
Elisa PoggiantiCardiology Division, Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, Pisa, 56124, Italy.
Claudia TaddeiCardiology Division, Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, Pisa, 56124, Italy.
Nicola Riccardo PuglieseUniversity Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Antoni Bayes-GenisCIBER Cardiovascular, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
Josep LupónCIBER Cardiovascular, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
Alberto GiannoniInstitute of Life Sciences, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy.
Andrea RipoliCardiology Division, Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, Pisa, 56124, Italy.
Georgios GeorgiopoulosSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Claudio PassinoInstitute of Life Sciences, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy.
Michele EmdinInstitute of Life Sciences, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy.
Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio · ITScuola Superiore Sant'Anna · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana · ITHospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol · ESInstituto de Salud Carlos III · ESKing's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Heart FailureVentricular Function, LeftHumansPrognosisStroke VolumeVentricular RemodelingCriteriaHeart failurePrognosisReverse remodelling

Identifiers

PMID34002938
PMCPMC8318429
OpenAlexW3161690983

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.