ReviewCurrent heart failure reports2022
'Acute Heart Failure': Should We Abandon the Term Altogether?
Review in Current heart failure reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Initial care and stabilization of ACHD patients : Teamwork improves outcomes].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025Review
- High mRNA Expression of 24 Dehydrocholesterol Reductase (DHCR24) in the Treatment of Doxorubicin-Induced Heart Failure in Rats.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of Acetazolamide in Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2024Review
- Acute Heart Failure: From The Emergency Department to the Intensive Care Unit.Cardiology clinics · 2024Review
- Clinical Predictive Modeling of Heart Failure: Domain Description, Models' Characteristics and Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe distinction between 'acute' and 'chronic' heart failure persists. Our review aims to explore whether reclassifying heart failure decompensation more accurately as an event within the natural history of chronic heart failure has the potential to improve outcomes. RECENT
findingsAlthough hospitalisation for worsening heart failure confers a poor prognosis, much of this reflects chronic disease severity. Most patients survive hospitalisation with most deaths occurring in the post-discharge 'vulnerable phase'. Current evidence supports four classes of medications proven to reduce cardiovascular mortality for those who have heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction, with recent trials suggesting worsening heart failure events are opportunities to optimise these therapies. Abandoning the term 'acute heart failure' has the potential to give greater priority to initiating proven pharmacological and device therapies during decompensation episodes, in order to improve outcomes for those who are at the greatest 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.