ArticleOpen heart2025
MAGGIC risk score-based risk stratification for selecting patients with heart failure who will benefit from multidisciplinary care.
Article in Open heart, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGuidelines worldwide recommend specialist outpatient clinics staffed by a multidisciplinary team for management of patients with heart failure (HF). However, there is limited information on how best to select these patients for efficient use of resources. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of team-based care for patients with HF after discharge from hospital according to duration of intervention and stratification of patients according to risk.
methodsWe retrospectively identified 185 eligible patients who were hospitalised with acute decompensated HF at our institution between January 2021 and June 2023. Multidisciplinary team care was defined as outpatient follow-up by both cardiologists and nurses postdischarge. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular-related death and readmission with HF within 1 year, which was compared between patients receiving HF team care and those receiving standard follow-up.
resultsHF team care was provided for 53.0% of patients, who were younger than those receiving standard follow-up and required more oral inotropes, tolvaptan and amiodarone. Among those receiving HF team care, the majority (58.2%) had an intervention duration of 30 days or less after discharge. After adjusting for background differences by inverse probability of treatment weighting, HF team care was associated with favourable 180-day outcomes, but there was no significant between-group difference in the 1-year primary outcomes. In subgroup analysis, patients with a higher Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure score (≥28), indicating a higher risk of exacerbation of HF, had significantly lower 1-year event rates with HF team care (p value for interaction <0.05).
conclusionsMultidisciplinary HF team care is most effective for patients at higher risk of exacerbation of HF. A risk score model may optimise patient selection for specialised care.
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.