ArticleCardiology journal2025
Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction predicts the magnitude of improvement in patients taking sacubitril/valsartan.
Article in Cardiology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSacubitril/valsartan (S/V) improve left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in heart failure patients, but the magnitude of improvement may depend on baseline values.
methodsWe analyzed whether baseline LVEF can predict its improvement in patients with LVEF ≤ 45% receiving S/V. Patients were divided into 4 groups (G) according to baseline LVEF (G1: ≤ 20%; G2: 21-30%; G3: 31-40%; G4: 41-45%).
resultsWe included 256 patients (age 73 ± 12 years; 73% male; 174 ischemic cardiomyopathy [CM], 82 nonischemic CM) and assessed LVEF at S/V initiation and at 6 and 12 months of therapy. Baseline LVEF (%) values (overall 30.9 ± 8.6) were: G1: 17.3 ± 3.3; G2: 27.5 ± 2.4; G3: 35.5 ± 2; G4: 44.4 ± 1. LVEF increased in 62% of patients, reaching 34.3 ± 10.4% and 35.5 ± 11.2% at 6 and 12 months, respectively (p < 0.001). A significantly higher absolute LVEF increase was found in Groups 3 (7.2 ± 4.3) and 4 (4.2 ± 3.05) than in Groups 1 (0.6 ± 1.5) and 2 (3.5 ± 1.5), in women (5.9 ± 4.4 vs. 4.1 ± 4.5; p < 0.001), with high S/V doses (7.4 ± 4.7 vs. 4.3 ± 4.4; p < 0.001), and in nonischemic CM (6.3 ± 4.9 vs. 3.8 ± 4.2; p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, female sex (OR 2.18; 95% CI [1.06-4.48]; p = 0.034), high dose (OR 3.38; 95% CI [1.10-10.34]; p = 0.033), and baseline LVEF > 30% (OR 8.62; 95% CI [4.69-15.82]; p = 0.001) were significant predictors of LVEF improvement.
conclusionsLVEF improvement with S/V depends on baseline values, sex, and dose.
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.