ArticleESC heart failure2025
Clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes in patients with apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2025. 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.
- Heterogeneity and Detection Rate of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Phenotype in China: A Multicenter Echocardiography Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- 2026 Expert Consensus Recommendations on Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Report of the Task Force of the Taiwan Society of Cardiology.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2026Article
- Multimodality Imaging in Apical Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Can Echocardiography Learn from Cardiac Magnetic Resonance?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes in patients with apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.ESC heart failure · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsAs a special type of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), apical HCM (ApHCM) has different clinical characteristics while its nature history and prognosis are not well recognized. We aimed to describe the characteristics and outcomes of ApHCM and identify predictors of adverse outcomes.
methodsIn this single-centre retrospective study, we included 479 patients with HCM and divided them into ApHCM and non-ApHCM groups. Clinical, electrocardiographic, echocardiographic and survival data were compared between the groups. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events in hospital and during follow-up. A two-sided P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsA total of 109 ApHCM patients and 370 non-ApHCM patients were analysed and 379 patients completed the follow-up among them. The age of enrolled patients was 61.0 (50.0-69.0) years, and 289 (60.3%) were male. Compared with non-ApHCM patients, ApHCM patients were older at diagnosis [55.0 (45.0-64.0) vs. 50.0 (40.0-61.0) years, P = 0.006] and had less positive family history for HCM [3 (2.8%) vs. 34 (9.2%), P = 0.027], more electrocardiographic abnormalities [101 (92.7%) vs. 287 (77.6%), P < 0.001], lower brain natriuretic peptide level [135.5 (60.8-272.8) vs. 422.5 (182.8-888.2) pg/mL, P < 0.001] and better left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [69.00 (64.00-73.87) vs. 67.00 (60.24-73.45) %, P = 0.048] at baseline. During a median follow-up of 5.59 (2.33-10.30) years, the primary outcome occurred less frequently in ApHCM patients [11.4% vs 27.2%; hazard ratio (HR)
conclusionsPatients with ApHCM may have better prognosis. LVEF and age were independent predictors of long-term outcomes in ApHCM.
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.