Evidence mapPaperPMID 39351634Full record

ArticleESC heart failure2025

Diagnostic and therapeutic practice for HFpEF across continents and regions: An international survey.

Inga J Ingimarsdóttir, Julie K K Vishram-Nielsen, Hafsteinn Einarsson, Sidney Goldfeder, Nathan Mewton, Anders Barasa, Carmen Basic, Marish I F J Oerlemans, David Niederseer, Anastasia Shchendrygina and 8 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in ESC heart failure, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Inga J IngimarsdóttirDepartment of Cardiology, Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Julie K K Vishram-NielsenDepartment of Cardiology, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark.
Hafsteinn EinarssonDepartment of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Faculty of Computer Science, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Sidney GoldfederCardioVID - Clinic, Medellín, Colombia.
Nathan MewtonCardiology Institute of the Hospices Civils de Lyon, Heart Failure Department, Clinical Investigation Center Inserm 1407 CarMeN Inserm 1060, University Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Anders BarasaDepartment of Cardiology, Amager Hvidovre Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Carmen BasicDepartment of Medicine Geriatrics and Emergency Medicine/Östra, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Marish I F J OerlemansDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
David NiederseerHochgebirgsklinik Davos, Medicine Campus Davos, Davos, Switzerland.
Anastasia ShchendryginaDepartment of Hospital Therapy 2, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Finn GustafssonDepartment of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Frank RuschitzkaDepartment of Cardiology, Center of Translational and Experimental Cardiology (CTEC), University Heart Center Zurich, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Keisuke KidaDepartment of Pharmacology, St Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan.
Dania MohtyKing Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, Heart Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Rolland R RakotonoelDepartment of Cardiology, University Hospital Joseph Raseta Befelatanana, Antananarivo, Madagascar.
Han Naung TunLarner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Thórdís J HrafnkelsdóttirDepartment of Cardiology, Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Clara SaldarriagaPontificia Bolivariana University - Antioquia's University, Medellín, Colombia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThis study aims to evaluate the worldwide variations in the diagnosis and treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), using an HF survey distributed internationally to physicians, including both cardiologists and non-cardiologists. METHODS AND

resultsA group of HF specialists designed an independent, academic web-based survey focusing on HFpEF care and diagnosis, which was distributed via scientific societies and various social networks between 1 May 2023 and 1 July 2023. The survey included 1459 physicians (1242 cardiologists and 217 non-cardiologists) from 91 countries, with a mean age of 42 (34-49) years and 61% male. Most physicians (89.2%) defined HFpEF as left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%. Significant regional variations were observed in HFpEF management (P < 0.001 for all comparisons unless stated otherwise). Cardiologists managed 63.1% of HFpEF patients overall, with significant variability across regions (P < 0.001). The estimated HFpEF prevalence was highest in Eastern Asia and Western Europe and lowest in Africa and South America. Diagnostic practices varied: natriuretic peptide use ranged from 70%-74% in Africa to 95%-97% in Southern/Western Europe. Echocardiographic parameters showed regional differences, with diastolic stress testing used most in South-Eastern Asia (47% vs. 13-36% elsewhere). HFpEF scoring systems were most common in South-Eastern Asia (78%) and least in Africa (30.1%). Coronary artery disease screening approaches differed, with Eastern Asian physicians more likely to always perform routine angiograms (52%) compared with Northern Europeans (12%). Treatment preferences also varied regionally. Sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) was the preferred first-line treatment (45%-70% across regions), followed by diuretics. In an ideal setting, 52% would primarily use SGLT2i, 33% loop diuretics, and 22% beta-blockers. Drug availability differed significantly: SGLT2i was most available (88% overall), while ARNI was least available (61%). South America and Middle Eastern/Northern Africa reported lower availability of guideline-directed therapies. Multidisciplinary HF programmes were most common in Asia (70%) and least in Africa (24%). The perceived benefit of atrial flow regulator devices also showed significant regional differences.

conclusionsThere are considerable global variations in the diagnosis and management of HFpEF. Most physicians favour SGLT2i despite regional disparities in health care resources and guideline adherence. Harmonized practices and improved access to comprehensive care can enhance outcomes of HFpEF patients worldwide.

Indexed as

Disease ManagementHeart FailurePractice Patterns, Physicians'Stroke VolumeVentricular Function, LeftAdultEchocardiographyFemaleGlobal HealthHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesGlobal differencesHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionManagementRisk factorsSurvey

Identifiers

PMID39351634
PMCPMC11769610

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.