Observational studyESC heart failure2026
Novel biomarkers distinguish heart failure with preserved vs reduced ejection fraction.
Observational study in ESC heart failure, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00774709 (Ancillary Study of the Registry Karolinska-Rennes), which is not on this 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.
Ancillary Study of the Registry Karolinska-Rennes (KaRen) : Prospective Study of Dyssynchrony in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionHeart failure (HF) with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction may be driven by different pathophysiologies. We explored novel biomarkers, associations with clinical characteristics, discrimination between LVEF categories and associations with outcomes. METHODS AND
resultsIn HFpEF(n = 76) and HFrEF(n = 36), 19 plasma biomarkers were measured including seven novel research assays for ANGPT2, BMP10, DKK3, FABP3, FGF23, IGFBP7, and MYBPC3. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction patients were older (73 vs 63 years), more often female (50% vs 14%). All seven novel biomarkers except FABP3 tended to be higher in HFrEF vs HFpEF and associated with worse NYHA class and lower eGFR in both LVEF categories. MYBPC3 and FGF23 (higher in HFrEF) discriminated best between LVEF categories (AUC 85.8 and 80.0 respectively). In HFpEF, higher ANGPT2 was associated with worse right (TAPSE: β = -1.03;P = .04) and left ventricular function (LV-GLS; β = 1.29;P = .03) and left atrial strain (LA-GLS: β = 5.03;P < .001) whereas higher IGFBP7 and MYBPC3 with diastolic dysfunction (E/e': β = 4.09;P = .02 and β = 1.36;P = .01 respectively). All biomarkers except DKK3 were positively associated with the outcome (HFpEF:all-cause death, HF hospitalization;HFrEF: all-cause death, LVAD or heart transplantation). Specifically ANGPT2 [HR 1.45(95% CI 1.00-2.13)] more strongly in HFpEF and IGFBP7 [2.51(0.95-6.64)] more strongly in HFrEFand MYBPC3 [1.62(0.99-2.64)].
conclusionAmong seven novel biomarker assays, higher MYBPC3 (reflecting muscle injury and myopathy) and FGF23 (endothelial dysfunction, oxidative stress) distinguished HFrEF from HFpEF. Higher MYBPC3 was most prognostic in HFrEF while higher ANGPT2 and IGFBP7 (endothelial dysfunction and oxidative stress) in HFpEF. These hypothesis-generating findings support primary cardiomyocyte injury as a driver of HFrEF and systemic inflammation and oxidative stress as a driver of HFpEF. CLINICAL
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00774709.
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.