SynthesisESC heart failure2026
Mortality and heart failure hospitalizations in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction compared to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in ESC heart failure, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporal Trends and Predictors of Mortality in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: The Role of Renal Function and Left Ventricular Improvement.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Real-world study of finerenone in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in Spain.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Observational
- Spiny Mice Show a Profibrotic Epicardial Mesothelial Response to Hypoxic Injury Comparable to C57BL/6 Mice.Biomolecules · 2026Article
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
introductionThe global burden of heart failure (HF) is rising, with a shift towards more cases of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Given evolving epidemiology, an updated assessment of outcome differences between HFpEF and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is needed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to provide a contemporary, large-scale comparison of clinical outcomes between HFpEF and HFrEF.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and HF hospitalizations in HFpEF (EF: >50%) and HFrEF (EF: <40%). Risk ratios (RR) and maximally adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using random-effects models. Additional analyses included prior HF hospital admissions, in-hospital mortality, and length of hospital stay.
resultsA total of 101 studies were included. HFpEF patients had lower all-cause mortality [RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.69-0.88; P < .001; adjusted HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.62-0.80; P < .001; 112 vs 148 per 1000 patient-years (PY)], CV mortality [RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.53-0.79; P < .001; adjusted HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.56-0.75; P < .001; 73 vs 110 per 1000 PY], and HF hospitalizations [RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.63-0.91; P = .003; adjusted HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.78-0.98; P = .02; 171 vs 225 per 1000 PY] compared to HFrEF.
conclusionHFpEF patients experience lower mortality and hospitalization risks than HFrEF patients, even after adjustment for confounders. However, high absolute event rates in HFpEF highlight the need for effective treatment strategies to improve outcomes.PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42024619499.
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.