Observational studyESC heart failure2025
Predictors of sustained reverse remodelling in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
Observational study 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 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.
- Predictors of sustained reverse remodelling in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.ESC heart failure · 2025Observational
- The Functional and Imaging Implications of Left Bundle Branch Pacing in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Reverse Remodelling, Myocardial Recovery and Remission in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: Clinical Implications and Management Strategies.Cardiac failure review · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who achieve reverse remodelling (RR) can experience a new decrease in ejection fraction (EF), and the predictors of sustained RR (SRR) are not completely understood.
objectivesThe study aims to identify predictors of SRR in patients with HFrEF after an increase in EF and evaluate SRR prognosis.
methodsIn this retrospective, observational study, we evaluated a real-life cohort of patients with HFrEF and ≥2 consecutive echocardiograms, divided according to left ventricular EF (LVEF) trajectory: no RR (NRR: 3/3 LVEF measurements < 40%), non-SRR (NSRR: second LVEF ≥ 40%, third LVEF < 40%), and SRR (SRR: second and third LVEF ≥ 40%).
resultsWe included 3628 of 8072 assessed HF patients in the analysis, with mean age 56.2 (±13.4) years, 64.4% male and 77.7% New York Heart Association (NYHA) I-II. Improved EF was observed for 1342 (37%) patients. Among those who achieved RR, 310 (23%) were NSRR, and 1032 (77%) were SRR. The mean (±SE) survival after the second echocardiogram was 10.6 (±0.2) years. The SRR group had the longest survival (12.2 ± 0.3 years), followed by the NSRR (10.6 ± 0.5) and NRR (9.8 ± 0.2 years) groups (P < 0.001). According to logistic multivariable regression, second LVEF [odds ratio (OR) = 1.06, confidence interval (CI) = 1.03-1.90, P < 0.001], second left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD) (OR = 0.93, CI = 0.90-0.96, P < 0.001), second IV septum thickness (OR = 1.12, CI = 1.03-1.23, P = 0.012), systolic blood pressure (OR = 1.01, CI = 1.00-1.02, P = 0.014), NYHA I-II (OR = 1.86, CI = 1.27-2.74, P = 0.001) and furosemide non-use (OR = 1.87, CI = 1.27-2.74, P < 0.001) independently predicted SRR.
conclusionsPatients with greater EF increases and LVESD reductions at EF recovery, greater septum thickness, higher blood pressure, no need for diuretics and NYHA I/II maintenance had the best chance of maintaining recovered ventricular function.
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.