ArticleESC heart failure2022
Patient profile and outcomes associated with follow-up in specialty vs. primary care in heart failure.
Article in ESC 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 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Specialized heart failure clinics versus primary care: Extended registry-based follow-up of the NorthStar trial.PloS one · 2023Trial
- Implementation of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors use in patients with heart failure across the ejection fraction: data from the Swedish heart failure registry.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2026Article
- Exploring Medication Adherence in Heart Failure From a Patient Perspective: A Qualitative Study.Circulation. Heart failure · 2026Article
- Nursing Care of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Sex-related disparities in elderly patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.ESC heart failure · 2026Observational
- Intermittent Fasting in Chronic Heart Failure: A Systematic Review of Safety and Physiological Outcomes.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2026Review
- Characteristics, use of guideline-recommended medical therapies and clinical outcomes of patients with heart failure not enrolled in a quality registry: a comparison with the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2025Observational
- Older patients with heart failure managed in primary care versus cardiology care: a register-based study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Characteristics and outcomes of patients with heart failure and history of malignancy: Data from Swedish Heart Failure Registry and the National Cancer Register.European journal of heart failure · 2025Article
- Sex-based differences in heart failure management and outcomes: Insights from the French-DataHF cohort.European journal of heart failure · 2025Article
- Predicted Mortality and Cardiology Follow-up Following Heart Failure Hospitalizations Among Veterans Health Administration Patients.Journal of cardiac failure · 2025Article
- Underpinnings of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in women - From prevention to improving function. A co-publication with the American Journal of Preventive Cardiology and the Journal of Cardiac Failure.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Article
- Rehospitalization, mortality and associated variables in primary care patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction after first hospitalization.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2025Article
- Prior hospitalizations as a predictor of prognosis in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Article
- Trends in heart failure mortality in Sweden between 1997 and 2022.European journal of heart failure · 2025Article
- Discontinuation and reinitiation of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.European journal of heart failure · 2025Article
- Diagnosing and managing patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a consensus survey.BMJ open · 2024Observational
- Prognostic Impact of Hospital Discharge After Heart Failure Admission Without Structured Heart Failure Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Management of Heart Failure in a Resource-Limited Setting: Expert Opinion from India.Cardiology and therapy · 2024Review
- Heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction: A review of disease burden and remaining unmet medical needs within a new treatment landscape.Heart failure reviews · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsFactors influencing follow-up referral decisions and their prognostic implications are poorly investigated in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced (HFrEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction (EF). We assessed (i) the proportion of, (ii) independent predictors of, and (iii) outcomes associated with follow-up in specialty vs. primary care across the EF spectrum. METHODS AND
resultsWe analysed 75 518 patients from the large and nationwide Swedish HF registry between 2000-2018. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to identify the independent predictors of planned follow-up in specialty vs. primary care, and multivariable Cox models to assess the association between follow-up type and outcomes. In this nationwide registry, 48 115 (64%) patients were planned for follow-up in specialty and 27 403 (36%) in primary care. The median age was 76 [interquartile range (IQR) 67-83] years and 27 546 (36.5%) patients were female. Key independent predictors of planned follow-up in specialty care included optimized HF care, that is follow-up in a nurse-led HF clinic [odds ratio (OR) 4.60, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 4.41-4.79], use of HF devices (OR 3.99, 95% CI 3.62-4.40), beta-blockers (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.32-1.47), renin-angiotensin system/angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.15-1.27), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.26-1.37); and more severe HF, that is higher NT-proBNP (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.20) and NYHA class (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08-1.19). Factors associated with lower likelihood of follow-up in specialty care included older age (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.28-0.30), female sex (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.86-0.93), lower income (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.76-0.82) and educational level (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.73-0.81), higher EF [HFmrEF (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.62-0.68) and HFpEF (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.53-0.58) vs. HFrEF], and higher comorbidity burden, such as presence of kidney disease (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87-0.95), atrial fibrillation (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.89), and diabetes mellitus (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.96). A planned follow-up in specialty care was independently associated with lower risk of all-cause [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.76-0.80] and cardiovascular death (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.73-0.78) across the EF spectrum, but not of HF hospitalization (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.10).
conclusionsIn a large nationwide HF population, referral to specialty care was linked with male sex, younger age, lower EF, lower comorbidity burden, better socioeconomic environment and optimized HF care, and associated with better survival across the EF spectrum. Our findings highlight the need for greater and more equal access to HF specialty care and improved quality of primary care.
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.