Trial reportJournal of cardiac failure2025
The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire in Relation to New York Heart Association Class.
Trial report in Journal of cardiac failure, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03470545 (A Randomized, Double Blind, Placebo Controlled Clinical Study to Evaluate Mavacamten), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
A Randomized, Double Blind, Placebo Controlled Clinical Study to Evaluate Mavacamten (MYK-461) in Adults With Symptomatic Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of aficamten in patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and mild symptoms: results from the SEQUOIA-HCM trial.European heart journal · 2025Trial
- Mavacamten in Chinese Patients with Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Patient-Reported Health Status Analysis up to 78 Weeks in the EXPLORER-CN Study.Cardiology and therapy · 2026Article
- The Relationship Between the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and Electrocardiographic Parameters in Predicting Outcomes After Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn order to identify candidacy and treatment response for patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM), clinicians need an accurate means of assessing symptoms, function, and quality of life. While the New York Heart Association (NYHA) Classification is most often used for this purpose, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-23) is more accurate and sensitive to change, although less familiar to practicing clinicians. To support interpreting the KCCQ-23, we describe cross-sectional and longitudinal changes in KCCQ scores in the context of the NYHA.
methodsParticipants from the EXPLORER-HCM trial (NCT03470545) completed the KCCQ-23 and clinicians assigned NYHA classes at study visits. Participants were included if they had baseline and week 30 data for cross-sectional and longitudinal changes. Median KCCQ-23 scores were compared by NYHA class at baseline and week 30 and by change in NYHA class from baseline to week 30.
resultsCross-sectionally, the KCCQ-23 Overall Summary Scores (KCCQ-23 OSS) and Clinical Summary Scores (KCCQ-23 CSS) had an inverse relationship with the NYHA class at baseline and 30 weeks, with marked variations in KCCQ-23 scores among patients assigned to the same NYHA class. When improving from NYHA class II to I, the median changes in KCCQ-23 OSS and KCCQ-23 CSS were 10 (IQR 4, 22) and 8 (IQR 2, 20), respectively. The changes were larger when improving from NYHA class III to II and from NYHA class III to I.
conclusionKCCQ-23 scores are inversely related to NYHA classes, with significant variability within classes. Changes in scores are not linear, suggesting greater differences when patients move between NYHA Classes II and III than when moving between Classes I and II. These insights may help clinicians better understand cross-sectional and longitudinal changes in KCCQ scores.
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.