Observational studyESC heart failure2025
A prospective analysis of management and outcomes of worsening heart failure in the outpatient setting.
Observational study 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A prospective analysis of management and outcomes of worsening heart failure in the outpatient setting.ESC heart failure · 2025Observational
- Reply to the letter 'Methodological issues in outpatient worsening heart failure research'.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThere is growing recognition of the burden and prognostic significance of WHF treated in the outpatient setting. However, there is currently a lack of prospective real-world data in this area of HF care. This study aims to analyse the natural history of outpatient WHF. METHODS AND
resultsThis is a prospective, observational study of consecutive patients treated for WHF in our ambulatory HF clinic from August 2022 to March 2024. The diagnosis of WHF was made according to two definitions. The first required meeting strict pre-specified diagnostic criteria. The second included patients not meeting these diagnostic criteria but deemed to have WHF by a senior cardiologist. All patients required escalation in diuretic therapy (oral and/or intravenous) for inclusion. Clinical endpoints included outcomes from the presenting WHF episode and over the subsequent 3 months. Of the 234 patients treated for outpatient WHF, stabilisation was achieved in 78.6% (184) with 16.2% (38) requiring HF hospitalisation. A further 3.4% (8) experienced non-HF-related admissions, 2 (0.9%) patients died without hospitalisation and 2 (0.9%) patients requested follow up in other units for geographic ease. Bailout therapies (oral metolazone and/or IV loop diuretic) were used in 45.3% (106), and adverse clinical outcomes were significantly higher in this group than among those treated with oral loop diuretic only (35.8%, 38/106 and 9.4%, 12/128 respectively; odds ratio 7.24, P < 0.001). Of those who initially stabilised, 24.5% (45/184) had recurrent outpatient WHF during the subsequent 3-month period of follow-up, and 4.9% (9/184) were hospitalised for HF.
conclusionsOutpatient WHF was successfully treated in the majority of patients in the community. However, despite initial stabilisation, there is a persistent risk of recurrent deterioration. This may reflect challenges in defining stability clinically in HF patients. Biologic markers of stability and closer follow-up may help to address this challenge and improve outlook for this at-risk group.
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.