Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34889076›Full record

Observational studyESC heart failure2022

Heart failure with preserved, mid-range, and reduced ejection fraction across health care settings: an observational study.

Annemarijn R de Boer, Ilonca Vaartjes, Aisha Gohar, Mark J M Valk, Jasper J Brugts, Leandra J M Boonman-de Winter, Evelien E van Riet, Yvonne van Mourik, Hans-Peter Brunner-La Rocca, Gerard C M Linssen and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in ESC heart failure, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Factors Associated with the Non-Exacerbator Phenotype of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Annemarijn R de BoerJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4200-0917
Ilonca VaartjesJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands.
Aisha GoharJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands.
Mark J M ValkJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands.
Jasper J BrugtsDepartment of Cardiology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5522-9318
Leandra J M Boonman-de WinterAmphia Academy, Amphia, The Netherlands.
Evelien E van RietJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands.
Yvonne van MourikJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands.
Hans-Peter Brunner-La RoccaDepartment of Cardiology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4356-8566
Gerard C M LinssenDepartment of Cardiology, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo and Hengelo, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3339-1955
Arno W HoesJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands.
Michiel L BotsJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2871-9810
Hester M den RuijterExperimental Cardiology, Division Heart & Lung Disease, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9762-014X
Frans H RuttenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5052-7332
Utrecht University · NLAmphia Ziekenhuis · NLErasmus MC · NLUniversity Medical Center · USZiekenhuis Groep Twente · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThis study aimed to assess the sex-specific distribution of heart failure (HF) with preserved, mid-range, and reduced ejection fraction across three health care settings. METHODS AND

resultsIn this descriptive observational study, we retrieved the distribution of HF types [with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)] for men and women between 65 and 79 years of age in three health care settings from a single country: (i) patients with screening-detected HF in the high-risk community (i.e. those with shortness of breath, frailty, diabetes mellitus, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) from four screening studies, (ii) patients with confirmed HF from primary care derived from a single observational study, and (iii) patients with confirmed HF from outpatient cardiology clinics participating in a registry. Among 1407 patients from the high-risk community, 288 had screen-detected HF (15% HFrEF, 12% HFmrEF, 74% HFpEF), and 51% of the screen-detected HF patients were women. In both women (82%) and men (65%), HFpEF was the most prevalent HF type. In the routine general practice population (30 practices, 70 000 individuals), among the 160 confirmed HF cases, 35% had HFrEF, 23% HFmrEF, and 43% HFpEF, and in total, 43% were women. In women, HFpEF was the most prevalent HF type (52%), while in men, this was HFrEF (41%). In outpatient cardiology clinics (n = 34), of the 4742 HF patients (66% HFrEF, 15% HFmrEF, 20% HFpEF), 36% were women. In both women (56%) and men (71%), HFrEF was the most prevalent HF type.

conclusionsBoth HF types and sex distribution vary considerably in HF patients of 65-79 years of age among health care settings. From the high-risk community through to general practice to the cardiology outpatient setting, there is a shift in HF type from HFpEF to HFrEF and a decrease in the proportion of HF patients that are women.

Indexed as

Heart FailureDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansMalePrognosisStroke VolumeVentricular Function, LeftHeart failureHFmrEFHFrEFScreeningSex differences

Identifiers

PMID34889076
PMCPMC8787985
OpenAlexW4200232977

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.