ArticleEuropean journal of heart failure2022
A comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure with preserved versus mildly reduced versus reduced ejection fraction - insights from the ESC-HFA EORP Heart Failure Long-Term Registry.
Article in European journal of heart failure, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 66 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
66 citing papers in PubMed, 119 citations in OpenAlex.
- Kidney function trajectories before and after hospitalization for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.European heart journal · 2025Trial
- Two Phenotypes, One Prognosis: Period-Specific Mortality and Prediction of Post-Discharge Events in Acute Heart Failure.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Differences in clinical features and 1-year outcomes of patients with heart failure and reduced, mildly reduced, and preserved ejection fraction in a contemporary cohort: is the clinical profile changing?Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Association between empagliflozin exposure and skeletal muscle degeneration in patients with heart failure.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Observational
- Biomarker-defined congestion profiles in very old adults with acute heart failure: beyond ejection fraction classification.European geriatric medicine · 2026Article
- Prognostic Factors of Acute Heart Failure: A Regional Population Registry.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Heart Failure Society of America Scientific Statement.Journal of cardiac failure · 2026Review
- D-dimer levels and outcomes in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
- Outcomes of heart failure with reduced, mildly reduced, or preserved ejection fraction: the ESC HF III registry.European heart journal · 2026Article
- Evaluation and management of recent onset cardiomyopathy in the current era of heart failure therapeutics: a clinical consensus statement of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC.ESC heart failure · 2026Review
- Left Ventricular Global Longitudinal Strain Predicts Pacemaker-Associated Cardiomyopathy with Substantial LVEF Deterioration: Results from a Single-Center Cohort Study in Germany.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Differences in Scalp Hair Trace Element Concentrations in Patients with Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) Compared with Controls: A Hypothesis-Generating Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A Contemporary Perspective on Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Classification: A State-of-the-art Review from an International Expert Group.Cardiac failure review · 2026Review
- Acute Heart Failure in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A State-of-the-art Review from an International Expert Group.Cardiac failure review · 2026Review
- The differences between ambulatory and hospitalized heart failure patients who have mildly reduced or preserved ejection fractions: lessons learned from the HF-POL study.Cardiology journal · 2026Observational
- Precipitants of Acute Heart Failure: A State-of-the-art Review from an International Expert Group.Cardiac failure review · 2026Review
- Heart failure types and predictors of 30-day rehospitalisation among patients aged ≥ 60 years with acute heart failure: a multicentre prospective study in Vietnam.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Heart Failure in Lebanon: A Glimpse into the Reality of Growing Burden.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Hypertensive acute heart failure: a critical perspective on definition, epidemiology, pathophysiology, and prognosis-a narrative review: a joint session with the Romanian Society of Cardiology (part II).Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Early in-hospital treatment of acute heart failure. Part 2 of the international expert opinion series on AHF management.ESC heart failure · 2025Review
6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
21 authors at 18 institutions in 13 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo perform a comprehensive characterization of acute heart failure (AHF) with preserved (HFpEF), versus mildly reduced (HFmrEF) versus reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS AND
resultsOf 5951 participants in the ESC HF Long-Term Registry hospitalized for AHF (acute coronary syndromes excluded), 29% had HFpEF, 18% HFmrEF, and 53% HFrEF. Hospitalization reasons were most commonly atrial fibrillation (more in HFmrEF and HFpEF), followed by ischaemia (HFmrEF), infection (HFmrEF and HFpEF), worsening renal function (HFrEF), and uncontrolled hypertension (HFmrEF and HFpEF). Hospitalization characteristics included lower blood pressure, more oedema and higher natriuretic peptides with lower ejection fraction, similar pulmonary congestion, more mitral regurgitation in HFrEF and HFmrEF and more tricuspid regurgitation in HFrEF. In-hospital mortality was 3.4% in HFrEF, 2.1% in HFmrEF and 2.2% in HFpEF. Intravenous diuretic (∼80%) and nitrate (∼15%) use was similar but inotrope use greater in HFrEF (16%, vs. HFmrEF 7.4% vs. HFpEF 5.3%). Weight loss and estimated glomerular filtration rate improvement were greater in HFrEF, whereas reduction in natriuretic peptides was similar. Over 1 year post-discharge, events per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval) in HFrEF versus HFmrEF versus HFpEF were: all-cause death 22 (20-24) versus 17 (14-20) versus 17 (15-20); cardiovascular (CV) death 12 (10-13) versus 8.6 (6.6-11) versus 8.4 (6.9-10); non-CV death 2.4 (1.8-3.1) versus 3.3 (2.1-4.8) versus 4.5 (3.5-5.9); all-cause hospitalization 48 (45-51) versus 35 (31-40) versus 42 (39-46); HF hospitalization 29 (27-32) versus 19 (16-22) versus 17 (15-20); and non-CV hospitalization 7.7 (6.6-8.9) versus 9.6 (7.5-12) versus 15 (13-17).
conclusionIn AHF, HFrEF is more severe and has greater in-hospital mortality. Post-discharge, HFrEF has greater CV risk, HFpEF greater non-CV risk, and HFmrEF lower overall risk.
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.