ReviewJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions
Patient Selection and End Point Definitions for Decongestion Studies in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: Part 1.
Review in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decongestion in heart failure: medical and device therapies.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2025Review
- Assessment of Decongestion Status Before Discharge in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: A Review of Clinical, Biochemical, and Imaging Tools and Their Impact on Management Decisions.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Addressing 'Residual Congestion' to Improve Prognosis After Acute Heart Failure Decompensation.Cardiac failure review · 2025Review
- How Deep Is My Ocean? Defining Decongestion for Patients and Trialists.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsArticle
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
Despite recent advances in the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure, acute decompensated heart failure remains associated with significant mortality and morbidity because many novel therapies have failed to demonstrate meaningful benefit. Persistent congestion in the setting of escalating diuretic therapy has been repeatedly shown to be a marker of poor prognosis and is currently being targeted by various emerging device-based therapies. Because these therapies inherently carry procedural risk, patient selection is key in the future trial design. However, it remains unclear which patients are at a higher risk of residual congestion or adverse outcomes despite maximally tolerated decongestive therapy. In the first part of this 2-part review, we aimed to outline patient risk factors and summarize current evidence for early recognition of high-risk profile for residual congestion and adverse outcomes. These factors are classified as relating to the following: (1) previous clinical course, (2) severity of congestion, (3) diuretic response, and (4) degree of renal impairment. We also aimed to provide an overview of key inclusion criteria in recent acute decompensated heart failure trials and investigational device studies and propose potential criteria for selection of high-risk patients in future trials.
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.