ArticleEuropean journal of heart failure2025
Differences in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction management between care providers: an international survey.
Article in European journal of heart failure, 2025. 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.
- Sex-related disparities in elderly patients with heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.ESC heart failure · 2026Observational
- Predicting survival in patients with heart failure aged 80 years and older.ESC heart failure · 2026Article
- Heart Failure in the Modern Era: A Narrative Overview of Recent Research from 2022-2025.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- SGLT2 inhibitors for the prevention and treatment of heart failure: A scientific statement of the HFA and the HFAI.ESC heart failure · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsHeart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is characterized by growing incidence and poor outcomes. A large majority of HFpEF patients are cared by non-cardiologists. The availability of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) as recommended therapy raises the importance of prompt and accurate identification and treatment of HFpEF across diverse healthcare settings. We evaluated HFpEF management across specialties through a survey targeting cardiologists, HF specialists, and non-cardiologists. METHODS AND
resultsAn independent web-based survey was distributed globally between May and July 2023. We performed a post-hoc analysis, comparing cardiologists, HF specialists, and non-cardiologists. A total of 1460 physicians (61% male, median age 41[34-49]) from 95 countries completed the survey; 20% were HF specialists, 65% cardiologists, and 15% non-cardiologists. Compared with HF specialists, non-cardiologists and cardiologists were less likely to use natriuretic peptides (p = 0.003) and HFpEF scores (p = 0.004) for diagnosis, and were also less likely to have access to or consider specific echocardiographic parameters (p < 0.001) for identifying HFpEF. Diastolic stress tests were used in less than 30% of the cases, regardless of the specialty (p = 1.12). Multidrug treatment strategies were similar across different specialties. While SGLT2i and diuretics were the preferred drugs, angiotensin receptor blockers and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors were the least frequently prescribed in all three groups. However, when constrained to choose one drug, the proportion of physicians favoring SGLT2i varied significantly among specialties (66% HF specialists, 52% cardiologists, 51% non-cardiologists). Additionally, 10% of non-cardiologists and 8% of cardiologists considered beta blocker the drug of choice for HFpEF.
conclusionSignificant differences among specialty groups were observed in HFpEF management, particularly in the diagnostic work-up. Our results highlight a substantial risk of underdiagnosis and undertreatment of HFpEF patients, especially among non-HF specialists.
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.