ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2024
Glycaemic control and insulin therapy are significant confounders of the obesity paradox in patients with heart failure and diabetes mellitus.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex differences in the association between nutritional status and in-hospital mortality in HFpEF patients.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Association of body composition with left ventricular remodeling and outcomes in diabetic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: assessment of sarcopenic obesity using cardiac MRI.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2025Article
- Association of Body Mass Index with Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF).Nutrients · 2024Article
- Glycemic control and clinical outcomes in diabetic patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: insight from ventricular remodeling using cardiac MRI.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2024Article
- Sex Differences in the Impact of BMI on Length of Hospital Stay in Hypertensive Patients Admitted to a Cardiology Department: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Vascular health and risk management · 2024Article
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 at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA high body mass index (BMI) confers a paradoxical survival benefit in patients with heart failure (HF) or diabetes mellitus (DM). There is, however, controversy whether an obesity paradox is also present in patients with HF and concomitant DM. In addition, the influence of glycaemic control and diabetes treatment on the presence or absence of the obesity paradox in patients with HF and DM is unknown.
methodsWe identified 2936 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the HF registries of the universities of Heidelberg, Germany, and Hull, UK (general sample). Of these, 598 (20%) were treated for concomitant DM (DM subgroup). The relationship between BMI and all-cause mortality was analysed in both the general sample and the DM subgroup. Patients with concomitant DM were stratified according to HbA1c levels or type of diabetes treatment and analyses were repeated.
resultsWe found an inverse BMI-mortality relationship in both the general sample and the DM subgroup. However, the obesity paradox was less pronounced in patients with diabetes treated with insulin and it disappeared in those with poor glycaemic control as defined by HbA1c levels > 7.5%.
conclusionIn patients with HFrEF, a higher BMI is associated with better survival irrespective of concomitant DM. However, insulin treatment and poor glycaemic control make the relationship much weaker.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.