SynthesisESC heart failure2024
Systematic review and meta-analysis to predict mortality in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: Development and validation of the HF-DANAS score.
Synthesis in ESC heart failure, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis to predict mortality in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: Development and validation of the HF-DANAS score.ESC heart failure · 2024Pooled it
- EMPEROR-Preserved Risk Model and Outcomes in the FINEARTS-HF Trial: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of FINEARTS-HF.JAMA cardiology · 2026Trial
- Sodium-Glucose Co-transporter 2 Inhibitors and Cardiovascular Event Reduction in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.European cardiology · 2026Review
- Heart Failure in the Modern Era: A Narrative Overview of Recent Research from 2022-2025.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Predictors of Long-Term Mortality in Medically Treated Patients With Chronic Heart Failure in Kosovo.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe morbidity and mortality of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) continue to increase with the accelerating global aging process. During the past decade, the pathophysiology, diagnostic methods, and prognostic prediction of HFpEF have been revolutionized, resulting in new and effective management strategies. Dynamic prognostic assessment facilitates systematic clinical management of patients, and the aim of this study was to investigate the risk factors for mortality in patients with HFpEF and to develop a risk prediction assessment model. METHODS AND REULTS: Data for the derivation cohort were obtained from three databases, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. The validation cohort was obtained from the Chinese Heart Failure Center database. The β-coefficient was calculated based on the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) corresponding to each risk factor to construct a mortality risk assessment model. A total of 30 studies were included in the meta-analysis: 22 prospective cohort studies and 8 retrospective cohort studies, including 34 196 HFpEF patients. Seven predictors of all-cause mortality in HFpEF patients were derived. Considering the need for feasibility in clinical practice, we performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses and determined the following cutoff values: age > 75 years (RR: 2.07, 95% CI: 1.83-2.35; P < 0.001), male sex (RR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.17-1.59; P < 0.001), DM (RR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.11-1.36; P < 0.001), anaemia (RR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.41-1.67; P < 0.001), albumin concentration < 3.2 g/dL (RR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.14-1.47; P < 0.001), AF (RR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.12-1.43; P < 0.001), and NYHA class III/IV (RR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.43-1.87; P < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for this model was 71.3% (95% CI: 0.696-0.736), with an optimal cut-off value of 10.75. The sensitivity and specificity were 0.778 and 0.566, respectively. According to this risk score, we divided patients into three risk classes (low, moderate, and high risk), the numbers of patients who died by the end of the 1-year follow-up were 23 (1.87%), 82 (5.62%), and 382 (15.52%) in these three groups, and the 5-year mortality rates were 9.82%, 20.68%, and 43.28%, respectively.
conclusionsThis study developed an HF-DANAS scoring system for the HFpEF mortality risk containing seven predictors, providing clinicians with a simple assessment tool that can help improve clinical management.
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.