ArticleCJC open2021
Survival in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy With Preserved vs Reduced Ejection Fraction.
Article in CJC open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Bone Marrow-Derived Stem Cells on Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Prevalence, Characteristics, Management and Outcomes of Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved, Mildly Reduced, and Reduced Ejection Fraction in Spain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Prognostic value of myocardial scar in ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.Cardiovascular journal of AfricaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrior studies suggest similar long-term mortality rates for patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) vs reduced ejection fraction. However, although coronary heart disease (CHD) is associated with worse prognosis in HF, clinical outcomes are less well characterized for HF without CHD. We investigated the characteristics and 5-year mortality outcomes among patients with HF without significant CHD, stratified by EF.
methodsPatients with clinical heart failure who underwent coronary angiography at Duke University Medical Center from 1996 through 2009 and had no significant CHD with EF
resultsOf 3154 patients with HF without significant CHD, 1530 (48.5%) had HFpEF (EF > 40%). These patients were older and more likely to have a Charlson Index ≥ 2 than patients with reduced EF. Patients with HFpEF had a lower risk of death than those with reduced EF (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.99). From 1996 through 2009, the secular trend of death decreased among patients without CHD and with reduced EF (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.88-0.97) but not among those with preserved EF (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93-1.05;
conclusionsAmong patients without significant CHD, those with HFpEF had similar risks of 5-year mortality as patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction.
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.