Trial reportESC heart failure2025
Assessing cardiovascular benefits of intensive blood pressure lowering in high-risk undiagnosed HFpEF patients.
Trial report 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing cardiovascular benefits of intensive blood pressure lowering in high-risk undiagnosed HFpEF patients.ESC heart failure · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is often underdiagnosed. This study evaluates the HFpEF-ABA score's ability to identify high-risk, undiagnosed HFpEF subgroups with elevated cardiovascular event rates and assesses the impact of intensive blood pressure control in these populations.
methodsA post-hoc analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) was performed. The HFpEF-ABA score identified high-risk individuals with undiagnosed HFpEF. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine interactions between HFpEF-ABA score groups and intensive blood pressure control on major cardiovascular outcomes. The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction (MI), acute coronary syndrome not resulting in MI, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure and cardiovascular disease death.
resultsAmong 9265 patients (mean age, 67.9 ± 9.4 years; 35.5% females), 559 primary outcomes occurred during a median follow-up of 3.2 years. An HFpEF-ABA score ≥ 90% was associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.96 (1.57-2.44); P < 0.001]. When treated as a continuous variable, higher HFpEF-ABA scores were independently associated with an increased risk of the primary composite outcome (P = 0.001), with a modest non-linear relationship observed (P for non-linearity = 0.040). In the intensive treatment group, the absolute reduction in primary outcomes was 5.0 per 1000 patient-years for scores < 90% and 11.2 per 1000 patient-years for ≥ 90%. Intensive blood pressure control reduced primary outcomes in both groups [<90%: aHR, 0.75 (0.62-0.90); ≥90%: aHR, 0.76 (0.51-1.13)] with no significant heterogeneity (P for interaction = 0.944). Serious adverse events did not increase in either group [<90%: aHR, 1.04 (0.96-1.11); ≥90%: aHR, 1.06 (0.88-1.28); P for interaction = 0.801].
conclusionsThe HFpEF-ABA score identifies high-risk patients with undiagnosed HFpEF who have elevated cardiovascular event rates and benefit from intensive blood pressure control without an increased risk of serious adverse events.
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.