ArticleESC heart failure2024
Representativeness of the PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic value of peak tricuspid regurgitation velocity in hospitalized patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: an multi-institutional study.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Representativeness of the PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients hospitalized for AHF. However, whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the trials apply to patients encountered in real-world routine care is unclear. This study aimed to investigate the applicability of the PIONEER-HF and PARAGLIDE-HF trials to real-world AHF patients. METHODS AND
resultsWe identified 28 293 AHF hospitalized patients between August 2008 to August 2017 from the Chang Gung Research Database and classified them into four groups based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and trial criteria. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the risk of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular (CV) death. We defined PIONEER-HF eligible (n = 3683) and non-eligible (n = 3502) patients with an LVEF ≤40%, and PARAGLIDE-HF eligible (n = 5191) and non-eligible (n = 5832) patients with an LVEF >40%. Over a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, the PIONEER-HF non-eligible and eligible groups exhibited similar rates of HF hospitalization and CV death (41.1% vs. 41.8%, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.88-1.04). No significant difference was found in the composite outcome between PARAGLIDE-HF non-eligible and eligible groups (36.7% vs. 38.6%; aHR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.90-1.04).
conclusionsUsing trial criteria, only 31.3% of AHF patients were eligible for sacubitril-valsartan. Yet, non-eligible patients demonstrated similar outcomes to eligible patients, indicating a need for further evaluation of sacubitril-valsartan benefits in non-eligible AHF patients.
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.