ArticleActa Cardiologica Sinica2025
The Prognostic Value of the Visually Assessed Time Difference between Mitral Valve and Tricuspid Valve Opening Score for Patients with Acute Heart Failure.
Article in Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of visually assessed time difference between mitral valve and tricuspid valve opening (VMT) score in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). Methods: Potential confounding factors associated with all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD)-cause mortality in AHF patients were explored using a univariate Cox regression model, and the relationship between the VMT score and all-cause/CVD-cause mortality was analyzed using a multivariable Cox regression model. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as the effect size. The prognostic value of the VMT score was evaluated using the C-index. Results: The all-cause mortality rate and CVD-cause mortality rate in the VMT score < 2 group were lower than in the VMT score ≥ 2 group. VMT score > 2 was correlated with an elevated risk of all-cause mortality in the AHF patients (HR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.20-3.25). An increased risk of CVD-cause mortality was observed in the VMT score > 2 group. The C-index of the VMT score for all-cause mortality in the AHF patients was 0.621 (95% CI: 0.570-0.672), while for CVD-cause mortality it was 0.644 (95% CI: 0.573-0.715). Combining the VMT score with variables associated with all-cause mortality and CVD-cause mortality, the C-index of the VMT score-based model for all-cause mortality in the AHF patients was 0.859 (95% CI: 0.820-0.898), while for CVD-cause mortality it was 0.872 (95% CI: 0.825-0.919). Conclusions: The VMT score showed moderate prognostic value for all-cause and CVD-cause mortality in patients with AHF. Combining the VMT score with other related variables resulted in good prognostic value for all-cause and CVD-cause mortality in patients with AHF.
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.