Trial reportESC heart failure2025
Socio-economic status and the effect of guideline-directed medical therapy in the STRONG-HF study.
Trial report 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Socio-economic status and the effect of guideline-directed medical therapy in the STRONG-HF study.ESC heart failure · 2025Trial
- Re: Effects of Dapagliflozin Combined with Sacubitril/Valsartan on Cardiac Electrophysiology and Quantitative Myocardial Motion Parameters in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2026Article
- Landmark clinical trials shaping contemporary guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2026Review
- Rationale and Design of the Türkiye Heart Failure (TURK-HF) Registry.Clinical cardiology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsAcute heart failure (AHF) impacts millions globally, with outcomes varying based on socio-economic status (SES).
methodsSES measured by annual household income, years of education and medical insurance coverage. Each patient's income and education level relative to the median or mean, respectively, in the country was calculated, and categorized into tertiles (0, 1 or 2 from lowest to highest). SES scores (0-5) were computed as the sum of these levels plus insurance coverage (0 = no or 1 = yes). Patients' baseline characteristics, outcomes (HF readmission, death and their composite) and the effect of high-intensity care (HIC) vs. usual care (UC) were examined by SES scores 0-2, 3 and 4-5.
resultsLower SES patients, who were younger, predominantly female, Black and non-European, had fewer comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation, diabetes and ischaemic heart disease and exhibited milder HF, indicated by a lower NYHA class, lower creatinine and higher cholesterol before discharge. Despite having milder HF and less comorbidities, after adjusting for baseline characteristics, patients with higher SES had numerically better outcomes, though differences were not statistically significant. 180-day hazard ratios (HRs) for HF readmission or death were 0.75 (95% CI 0.48-1.16) for SES scores of 3 and 0.85 (95% CI 0.58-1.23) for scores of 4-5, compared to 0-2. Higher SES patients had numerically better treatment effect from HIC, with HRs of 0.69 for SES 0-2, 0.72 for SES 3 and 0.50 for SES 4-5.
conclusionsIn this post hoc analysis of the STRONG-HF study, lower SES was associated with milder acute HF but similar 180-day outcomes. Higher SES patients benefitted more from HIC.
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.