Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36045010›Full record

SynthesisESC heart failure2022

Long-term mortality in heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Deep Chandh Raja, Indira Samarawickrema, Souvik Das, Abhinav Mehta, Lukah Tuan, Sanjiv Jain, Sanjay Dixit, Frank Marchlinski, Walter P Abhayaratna, Prashanthan Sanders and 1 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Characteristics of the phenotype of mixed cardiomyopathy in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

11 authors.

Deep Chandh RajaAustralian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Indira SamarawickremaUniversity of Canberra, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Souvik DasCanberra Health Services, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Abhinav MehtaAustralian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Lukah TuanAustralian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Sanjiv JainUniversity of Canberra, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Sanjay DixitElectrophysiology Section, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Frank MarchlinskiElectrophysiology Section, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Walter P AbhayaratnaAustralian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Prashanthan SandersCentre for Heart Rhythm Disorders, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Rajeev K PathakAustralian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7391-6867

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsHeart failure patients with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) have overlapping clinical features, compared with patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We aim to perform a meta-analysis of studies reporting long-term outcomes in HFmrEF compared with HFrEF and HFpEF. METHODS AND

resultsData from 18 eligible large-scale studies including 126 239 patients were pooled. Patients with HFmrEF had a lower risk of all-cause death than those with HFrEF [risk ratio (RR) = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.85-0.98; P < 0.001]. This significant difference was seen in the follow-up at 1, 2, and 3 years. Patients with HFmrEF had significantly lower risk of cardiovascular (CV) deaths than HFrEF (RR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.65-0.92; P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that studies recruiting >50% of males had higher risk of deaths with HFrEF (RR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.04-1.26; P = 0.006). When compared with HFpEF, patients with HFmrEF had comparable risk of all-cause death (RR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.96-1.09; P = 0.53). Similarly, there were no differences in the 1, 2, and 3 year deaths; CV and non-CV deaths were insignificant between HFmrEF and HFpEF.

conclusionsThe results of the study support that HFmrEF has better prognosis than HFrEF but similar prognosis when compared with HFpEF. Gender disparity between studies seems to influence the results between HFmrEF and HFrEF. Transition in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which could not be addressed in the study, may play a decisive role in determining outcomes. PROSPERO review registration number CRD42021277107.

Indexed as

Heart FailureVentricular Dysfunction, LeftHumansMalePrognosisStroke VolumeVentricular Function, LeftGender differencesHeart failureMeta-analysisMid-range ejection fractionMortalitySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36045010
PMCPMC9773707

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.