Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36460629›Full record

ReviewESC heart failure2023

ACC/AHA/HFSA 2022 and ESC 2021 guidelines on heart failure comparison.

Amir Hossein Behnoush, Amirmohammad Khalaji, Nasim Naderi, Haleh Ashraf, Stephan von Haehling

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in ESC heart failure, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
10.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Dronedarone provides effective early rhythm control: post-hoc analysis of the ATHENA trial using EAST-AFNET 4 criteria.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025
    Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Amir Hossein BehnoushSchool of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-9955-4227
Amirmohammad KhalajiSchool of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-6138-1914
Nasim NaderiRajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Haleh AshrafRajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Stephan von HaehlingDepartment of Cardiology and Pneumology, University of Göttingen Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany.
Iran University of Medical Sciences · IRTehran University of Medical Sciences · IRUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (ACC/AHA/HFSA) and the 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) both provide evidence-based guides for the diagnosis and treatment of heart failure (HF). In this review, we aimed to compare recommendations suggested by these guidelines highlighting the differences and latest evidence mentioned in each of the guidelines. While the staging of HF depends on left ventricular ejection fraction, the Universal Definition of HF, suggested in 2021, is described in 2022 ACC/AHA/HFSA guidelines. Both guidelines recommend invasive and non-invasive tests to diagnose. Despite being identical in the backbone, some differences exist in medical therapy and devices, which can be partially attributed to the recent trials published that are presented in the American guidelines. The recommendation of implantable cardioverter defibrillator for prevention in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients, made by ACC/AHA/HFSA guidelines, is among the bold differences. It seems that ACC/AHA/HFSA guidelines emphasize the quality of life, cost-effectiveness, and optimization of care given to patients. On the other hand, the ESC guidelines provide recommendations for certain comorbidities. This comparison can guide clinicians in choosing the proper approach for their own settings and the writing committees in addressing the differences in order to have better consistency in future guidelines.

Indexed as

CardiologyHeart FailureHumansQuality of LifeStroke VolumeUnited StatesVentricular Function, LeftAmerican College of CardiologyEuropean Society of CardiologyGuidelinesHeart failure

Identifiers

PMID36460629
PMCPMC10192289
OpenAlexW4310638946

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.