ArticleESC heart failure2026
Role of provocation and exercise imaging for the identification of candidates for cardiac myosin inhibitors.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsLeft ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO) drives symptoms and functional limitation in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM). Some patients may only show treatment-qualifying obstruction during exercise echocardiography, yet their clinical profile and response to cardiac myosin inhibition are not well defined. This study compared the characteristics and therapeutic response of patients requiring exercise echocardiography to establish eligibility for mavacamten versus those meeting criteria at rest or during Valsalva. METHODS AND
resultsA single-centre retrospective cohort of 56 symptomatic oHCM patients treated with mavacamten was evaluated. LVOTO was assessed at rest, with Valsalva, and during exercise; patients were classified as 'exercise' or 'non-exercise' LVOTO based on the provocation manoeuvre eliciting a qualifying gradient (≥50 mmHg). Haemodynamic (Valsalva LVOT gradient) and symptomatic (NYHA class) response were assessed at 12 and 24 weeks. A total of 42.9% qualified for mavacamten exclusively during exercise echocardiography. Although resting and Valsalva gradients were lower by definition, these patients showed similar baseline functional limitation and exercise capacity (pVO2; 17.9 ± 7.4 vs. 16.8 ± 5.5 mL/kg/min, P = .550). By 24 weeks, most patients in both groups achieved non-obstructive gradients (<30 mmHg; 93.3% vs. 96.4%, P = .646) and NYHA class improvement (75.0% vs. 93.3%, P = .266), without significant between-group differences.
conclusionPatients requiring exercise echocardiography to document treatment-qualifying LVOTO do not exhibit a milder disease phenotype and derive similar treatment benefits from mavacamten compared to those with resting or Valsalva-provoked obstruction. Exercise echocardiography identifies a substantial proportion of symptomatic HCM patients with significant LVOTO missed by resting assessment and is essential for guiding treatment eligibility.
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.