ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Characteristics, prognosis, and treatment response in HFpEF patients with high vs. normal ejection fraction.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Relationship between serum uric acid levels and uric acid lowering therapy with the prognosis of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- The impact of atrial fibrillation on clinical outcomes in heart failure with mid-range and preserved ejection fraction patients.Heart rhythm · 2024Trial
- Outcomes and Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Cardiac Magnetic Resonance: Challenging the "Higher Is Better".Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Clinical Characteristics and Prognosis of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Across Diverse Ejection Fraction Ranges.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Prognosis of patients with supranormal ejection fraction undergoing percutaneous aortic valve replacement.REC, interventional cardiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients varied by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have different clinical characteristics, prognosis, and treatment response. With data from our prospective HFpEF cohort, we assessed the possible relationship between clinical characteristics, outcome as well as treatment response and LVEF. Methods: We compared differences in baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes across LVEF categories (50%≤LVEF <60% vs. LVEF≥60%) in 1,502 HFpEF patients, and determined whether LVEF modified the treatment response. During 5-year follow-up, all-cause mortality was used as the primary endpoints, and composite endpoints (all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization) were set as the secondary endpoint. Results: Patients with higher LVEF were statistically older, more likely to be women and have a history of atrial fibrillation. Patients with lower LVEF category were more likely to have a history of coronary artery disease. The incidences of all-cause mortality and composite endpoints were higher in patients with higher LVEF. Also, LVEF modified the spironolactone treatment effect for the primary outcome and secondary endpoint with stronger estimated benefits at the lower LVEF category with respect to all-cause mortality (HR 0.734, 95% CI 0.541-0.997, Conclusion: The characteristics and outcomes of HFpEF patients varied substantially by LVEF. Patients with higher LVEF encountered more adverse events than those with lower LVEF. The potential efficacy of spironolactone was greatest at the lower category of LVEF spectrum in HFpEF.
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.