ArticleClinical cardiology2025
Predictive Value of Lung Ultrasound Combined With ACEF Score for the Prognosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- International evidence-based recommendations for point-of-care lung ultrasound : 2025 focused update of the 2012 recommendations.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Machine learning redevelopment of GRACE, ACEF, and TIMI scores for 6-month mortality.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Predictive Value of Lung Ultrasound Combined With ACEF Score for the Prognosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction.Clinical cardiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung ultrasound (LUS) and the ACEF score (age, creatinine, and ejection fraction) have been shown to be pivotal in predicting an unfavorable prognosis in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study is to investigate the prognostic value of LUS combined with ACEF score in AMI.
methodsThe ACEF score and the total number of B-lines in eight thoracic regions of LUS were calculated. Adverse events were recorded during hospitalization and follow-up, defined as all-cause death and other cardiovascular events. Multivariate logistic regression identified predictors of adverse events during hospitalization. Multivariate Cox regression identified predictors of adverse events during follow-up.
resultsWe enrolled 204 patients. The B-lines (adjusted OR 1.08, [95% CI: 1.03-1.13], p < 0.01) and the ACEF score (adjusted OR 2.71 [95% CI: 1.07-6.81], p < 0.05) independently predicted adverse events during hospitalization. The C-index values were 0.81 (p < 0.01) for the ACEF score, 0.81 (p < 0.01) for LUS, and 0.86 (p < 0.01) for their combination. One hundred seventy-one patients were followed up for 12 months (IQR, 8.13-15.93). Both the B-lines (adjusted HR 1.06 [95% CI: 1.03-1.09], p < 0.05) and the ACEF score (adjusted HR 1.95 [95% CI: 1.10-3.43], p < 0.05) remained associated with an increased risk of adverse events during follow-up. The C-index values were 0.74 (p < 0.01) for the ACEF score, 0.73 (p < 0.01) for LUS, and 0.80 (p < 0.01) for their combined predictive ability.
conclusionsThe B-lines and ACEF score are associated with adverse events in AMI patients. When combined, they provide increasing value in assessing the risk of adverse events, which has significant implications for risk stratification.
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.